Tuesday, June 29, 2021

[San Francisco] Civil Grand Jury releases report on why Van Ness construction is taking so long

 A San Francisco Civil Grand Jury report on answers questions on why the Van Ness Improvement Project is taking so long.

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Why is the Van Ness Improvement Project taking so long? That's the question a new San Francisco Civil Grand Jury report released Monday answers.

The project from Mission Street to Lombard Street will create San Francisco's first bus rapid transit system with dedicated bus lanes, improvements to boarding, and technology to keep buses moving. It will also replace a 100-year-old water main and sewer.

Businesses up and down the 2-mile stretch of San Francisco have long had a different name for Van Ness Avenue.

"It's a mess," said Farzin Kaveh who owns Audio Symphony.

The mess also caught the attention of San Francisco's 19 person civil grand jury.

RELATED: SF's Van Ness Improvement Project has some calling it 'Van Mess'

"You can imagine with 5-6 years of construction a lot of us and including our friends and acquaintances asked the question why is Van Ness taking so long," said Simone Manganelli, Juror and Committee Chairperson for the Van Ness Investigation Civil Grand Jury.

The Civil Grand Jury's newly released report found that the cost of the project has increased to $346 million dollars, $37 million dollars over budget. Also that bus service is slated to begin in 2022, three years later than promised.

The City has said the delays were driven by unexpected findings under the surface of Van Ness, but the Jury found that the SFMTA could have lessened delays and cost overruns had it done more prior to the start of construction.

"In terms of the design, the planning, the contracting, the pre-construction process," said Manganelli.

The Civil Grand Jury found deficiencies on both the city side and contractor side.

On the city side, the jury found that while putting bus rapid transit lines down the middle of the lane will make transit times more smooth, it created delays because existing utilities like water and sewer needed to be moved to the side of the street.

The jury also found a lack of exploratory potholing by the city.

"Exploratory potholing would have helped them realize how different the official utility maps under Van Ness Avenue were compared to reality," said Manganelli.

RELATED: SF businesses facing losses during Van Ness construction project

On the contractor side, the jury found Walsh may have cost less up front, but not in the long run.

"Walsh and the city weren't working together on this contract in the way that they were supposed to," said Manganelli.

"They were all focused on resolving these issues of delays and timelines meticulously instead of trying to innovate and get the project proceeding," he continued.

Something which has not been lost on businesses suffering on Van Ness. I interviewed Kaveh in 2019 and again today.

"It's not a welcoming neighborhood anymore, people avoid it so as a business owner and other businesses, people are not coming this way and you can't blame them either," said Kaveh.

In an emailed statement, the SFMTA said, "We appreciate the work of the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury on the Van Ness Improvement Project. It raises certain issues identified in prior internal audits and we are actively working on incorporating lessons learned from those issues into successful projects throughout the City. The SFMTA has resolved multiple contractor claims relating to the issues in the report, including several where the contractor acknowledged its shortcomings. We regret that the report does not properly reflect the roles and responsibilities of a Construction Management General Contractor on a capital construction project as complex as the Van Ness Improvement Project.

Now that the underground work is done we are nearly on-time and on-budget for the surface component of the project. Our teams are applying lessons learned from the Van Ness Improvement Project to other projects in our SFMTA portfolio-including the successful Geary Rapid Project. The recent pace of construction for above ground work reflects the lessons learned by the contractor as well, and we look forward to working with them toward a successful final stage of this project."

Walsh did not respond to the I-Team's request for a statement.

Agencies identified in the Grand Jury's report have 60 or 90 days to respond. The Board of Supervisors will conduct a public hearing once those responses are submitted.

ABC News
By Melanie Woodrow
June 29, 2021

Monday, June 28, 2021

Alameda County 2020-21 grand jury issues recommendations

 The 2020-21 Alameda County grand jury issued its final report June 21, offering recommendations to three county organizations.

The final report seeks to address allegations of misbehavior with the Peralta Community College Board of Trustees, racial inequities in police responses to victims’ needs and the need for accuracy and impartiality of ballot measure questions.

“Those agencies are required by law to formally respond to the findings and recommendations within 90 days of the report publications,” said jury foreperson Susan Frost in an email. “Ultimately, the grand jury is acting on behalf of Alameda County residents to hold government agencies accountable, address problems and improve effectiveness.”

The jury members worked remotely to attend meetings and interview witnesses, according to a letter from Frost to Tara M. Desautels. The letter also said the grand jury members interviewed more than 100 witnesses, reviewed hundreds of documents and performed “countless” hours of research.

Assistant District Attorney Rob Warren noted that the grand jury received eight formal complaints regarding the behavior of the Peralta Community College Board of Trustees, which serves more than 20,000 students each semester, including those at Berkeley City College. The complaints ranged from interfering with the authority of the chancellor to general incivility.

After interviewing 19 witnesses, including current and former trustees, administrators, faculty and statewide experts in governance best practices, the grand jury determined the trustees had three violations. First, it interfered with the chancellor’s authority. Second, the trustees were harsh toward other trustees and administrators. Lastly, the board had held secret meetings in violation of the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting laws aimed to protect the sanctity of participatory governance in California.

In one particular case of incivility, the grand jury analyzed an email from one trustee stating, “Let them dare to try to take us over for this weak shit,” and “Let’s kill them tomorrow.”

In January 2020, the UC Berkeley School of Law published a study titled “Living with Impunity: Unsolved Murders in Oakland and the Human Rights Impact on Victims’ Family Members.” The study found that the Oakland Police Department was “severely lacking” in policies critical to address crime victims, leading to racial inequities in compensating victims.

The grand jury was motivated by the study and sought to understand the levels of racial disparity in OPD’s victim compensation, the report notes. The grand jury found that while state law mandates law enforcement agencies to have a crime liaison officer who provides support services to victims, OPD did not comply with the law until the grand jury raised the issue in January 2021.

The grand jury also found that many victims of color, particularly Black victims, are denied compensation because of a “lack of cooperation with law enforcement.” The report found that Black applicants for compensation received 42.2% of all denials, whereas white applicants received 10.3%.

In the report, the jurors said the subjective nature of cooperation increases the chances that racial biases will enter determinations. Furthermore, the jury found that determinations of cooperation are made solely by the police, often without victim input.

Based on its findings, the jurors recommended that OPD immediately designate a crime liaison officer and work with the Victim-Witness Assistance Division to investigate racial inequities with victim compensation.

The last issue the report offered recommendations for was the need for accurate and unbiased wordings for local ballot measures.

“Every election year, Alameda County voters are faced with a plethora of measures on the ballot that can be confusing and difficult to understand,” Frost said in a letter to Desautels. “While describing a measure in 75 words or less on the ballot can be a challenge, providing unbiased and informative descriptions consistent with Elections Code are imperative.”

During its investigation, the grand jury analyzed six ballot measures, five from the 2020 elections and one from 2016.

Many questions used favorable language that was irrelevant or unnecessary to describe the measure, the report noted. San Leandro’s Measure VV, passed in November 2020, said its increase of the real estate transfer tax would be used “supporting seniors … through COVID-19 economic recovery … (and) maintaining youth violence prevention programs.”

However, none of those programs exist in the text of the actual ordinance itself, according to the report.

The report also found that measures would use language that was relevant to the ordinance but was argumentative in nature. For instance, Hayward Measure OO begins with the phrase, “To create more opportunities for residents to volunteer, and to honor Hayward’s commitment to diversity,” before explaining what the measure would actually implement.

Based on its findings, the grand jury recommended that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors should create an independent advisory committee to review local ballot questions according to a set of uniform standards and guidelines.

The Daily Californian
By Christopher Ying
June 28, 2021.

 

Saturday, June 26, 2021

Grand Jury criticizes communication around Placer County homeless housing program

The Placer County Grand Jury’s final report was released this month, and its findings criticized the lack of communication and transparency around a county homeless program.

The report focused on the Placer County Whole Person Care pilot program, which allowed two county non-profit contractors to purchase single-family homes as permanent supportive housing.

The report said Placer County’s transparency regarding the program was “deficient” and that the program “lacked oversight.”

The Grand Jury report looked at the county request for proposals for the non-profits, The Gathering Inn and Advocates for Mentally Ill Housing, Inc., and found that the homes purchased would accommodate at least six people that qualify. It also stated contractors would make efforts to encourage and maintain positive community relationships with surrounding neighbors, associations, law enforcement and other community partnerships.

Each non-profit was awarded $2.8 million contracts, and each purchased three single-family homes in Lincoln, Roseville, Rocklin and Auburn from December 2019 through January 2021. Between the six homes, 17 Placer County individuals who qualify now have stable housing as a part of the pilot.

The Grand Jury report stated that through its investigation it learned Placer County Health and Human Services, The Gathering Inn and Advocates for Mentally Ill Housing, Inc. did not communicate with neighbors, neighborhood or community associations or the city councils of Auburn, Lincoln, Roseville or Rocklin before the contractors purchased the homes.

Through follow-up interviews with the contractors, the Grand Jury discovered the contractors did not interact with the neighborhoods before purchase to avoid interfering with the escrow process.

The report questioned Placer County’s decision to not inform the neighborhoods and city councils before the purchase of the homes and called the action “a lack of transparency.”

Due to the pandemic restrictions, The Gathering Inn staff stated it did not interact with neighborhoods even after purchasing the houses. Cancelled meetings due to the pandemic also paused Advocates for Mentally Ill Housing, Inc.’s neighborhood communication.

“There were alternative methods, such as direct mail or social media, available to (the contractors) to communicate with the neighborhood residents which might have reduced neighborhood concerns,” the report stated.

The Grand Jury also called on Placer County to reorganize its homeless services. It said the Placer County Health and Human Services department has six divisions and is the largest department in the county. The pilot is overseen by the Public Health division, while the mentally ill homeless are overseen by the Adult Service of Care division.

“The Grand Jury questions the efficiency of having no single divisions overseeing all programs which makes communications fragmented if not impossible involving the homeless and the funds associated with those programs,” the report stated.

Overall, the Grand Jury stated the lack of communication regarding the pilot program resulted in misinformation being spread.

“Because of the lack of communication, the public turned to social media and rumors for the information,” the report stated. “This resulted in a perception that the number of calls law enforcement received concerning permanent supportive housing was very high.”

The report reveals that complaints against the housing was lower than what was posted on social media.

The Grand Jury admitted a solution to homeless housing that would please everyone isn’t likely, but improved communication would make the county pilot more successful.

The Grand Jury concluded the report with four recommendations for Placer County Health and Human Services, including: complying with its plan for transparency and communication, instituting an annual review of compliance of transparency and communication, take steps to add a division or reorganize to have a single division manage all homeless programs in the county and make sure contractors have initiated open communications with neighborhoods.

The Grand Jury allows a response period from entities it looks into and expects a response from Placer County no later than Oct. 1.

Asked for a reaction of the findings in the report, Health and Human Services Public Information Officer Katie Combs Prichard said they “look forward to developing and providing an in-depth response to the report.”

The Placer County pilot program was one of several government operations investigated in the latest Placer Grand Jury report. Other topics included November 2020 election preparedness, special district reporting compliance, management of the Lincoln Regional Airport and public library systems.

The full Placer County Grand Jury 2020-2021 Final Report can be viewed online at http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/general-grandjury-reports.shtml.

Auburn Journal
Traci Newell
June 25, 2021

[Santa Cruz County Grand Jury] Report: Supervisors did not adequately address CZU Lightning Complex victim concerns, hold Cal Fire accountable

Santa Cruz County, California (KION) The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury released a report after investigating how the county government responded to the needs and concerns of victims of the CZU Lightning Complex fire.

The fire began on August 16, 2020, when a dry thunderstorm storm struck parts of California. The lightning caused fires around the state, including the CZU Lightning Complex, the largest fire in county history. The fire burned 63,754 acres and destroyed 1,431. Over 900 buildings were homes.

Tad Jones, a resident of a county, died in a fire. The grand jury tried to leave when the evacuation order was issued, but reported that the one-lane road he had to use had already been blocked by a fire. The grand jury said he went to the place where Calfire told the inhabitants to go in case of a fire, but when no one seemed to come, he tried to go to Big Basin to get out. did. According to the report, the rescue vehicle has never reached clearing. Jones’s body was found in a burnt-out car a few days later.

More than 70,000 people were evacuated due to the fire.

On October 6, 2020, the Santa Cruz County Supervisory Board resolved to establish a response, recovery and resilience office to assist the victims, and the grand jury received positive feedback on the program. He said, but he announced the work of government leaders responsible for CalFire’s past actions and preparation for future events.

The grand jury has started the investigation and announced the results of seven investigations after receiving complaints from residents that “I don’t know what’s wrong and I haven’t heard from local leaders.”

The grand jury discovered the following:

Residents are concerned about responding to wildfires and preparing for future events. We also found that supervisors were unaware that they were responsible for addressing community concerns.

There were differences in the content and depth of the analysis between the presentations at CalFire’s virtual community meetings at San Mateo and Santa Cruz County.

Supervisors did not respond appropriately to community concerns and questions.

Supervisors are not responsible for the lack of analysis of performance during the fire.

Currently, the contract between the county and Cal Fire does not provide for post-fire post-season reporting.

Supervisor’s response to 2020 findings and recommendations “Are you ready? Aim? Set on fire!” The report provides an understanding of the lack of involvement in the material and their role. Indicates a lack.

The adequacy of resources for future firefighting is questionable due to uncertainties in mutual aid support, the deployment and management of volunteer companies, and the availability of funds.

The grand jury also issued some recommendations for the supervisory board.

Supervisors should challenge Cal Fire in case of a future fire, challenge their response to the CZU Lightning Complex, and conduct an investigation to answer community questions and concerns within the next 30 days.

Supervisors should adopt policies to handle and record resident complaints and questions.

Supervisors must request a follow-up report of all major CalFire incidents within the next six months.

Supervisors should instruct staff to develop a public lesson document outlining Cal Fire’s investigation and action plans for upcoming events and improved response over the next 90 days.

Supervisors need to rethink their response to 2020’s “ready, aim, or ignite”. Please report and rewrite their answers by December 31st in the document posted on their website.

Supervisors should instruct staff to advocate additional fire reserve funding and preventive resources from the state within six months.

But it’s not all bad news for the people involved. Grand jury recognizes and praises the courage of life-threatening firefighters at the CZU Lightning Complex, and the response, resilience and resilience offices do a great job of providing information and resources on their websites and speed He said he had developed an excellent ability to transform. Permits and rebuilds.

California News Times
June 25, 2021

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

[Orange County] Grand jury says TCA should focus on paying off debt

The Transportation Corridor Agencies should pay off their debt obligations by 2040—more than a decade sooner than currently planned—the Orange County Grand Jury recommended in a new report that casts doubt on the prospect that their toll roads eventually will become free thoroughfares.

The latest Grand Jury report on the TCA, the second in as many years, found that the agencies’ remaining principal debt and interest of about $10 billion could be paid by 2037 if the TCA employed “extreme measures and focused entirely on debt elimination.”

Recommending that the TCA’s top priority should be the elimination of the debt, the 79-page report suggested that the agencies draft a plan to pay off their debt by 2040, which could save an estimated $1 billion in debt services.

The Grand Jury noted, however, that the TCA’s “huge debt obligation” to pay off the bonds that funded the construction of the 73, 133, 241 and 261 Toll Roads is what will keep the agencies in existence for at least the next 30 years.

“The debt level is an important element of the TCA’s business plan,” the report stated, before referencing state law that allows the collection of tolls and development impact fees (DIFs) to fund construction or defray financing costs for construction.

“If the TCA had no construction work or outstanding construction debt, its continued existence would rest on shaky legal ground,” the report added.

Released on Monday, June 21, the report comes a year after the OC Grand Jury published the initial findings of its investigation into the TCA, reporting, among other things, that the toll road operators had placed themselves in road planning projects that are likely outside of their legislative purview.

That investigation, however, was cut short because of the pandemic.

In this month’s report, the Grand Jury largely focused on the TCA’s revenue from tolls and DIFs, as well as how that money is spent. It also covered the ongoing controversy over the 241 extension proposals, the purpose of the two agencies and whether they’ll ever go out of business.

Highlighting aspects of the report that praised the toll roads, the TCA on Monday emphasized its construction of “excellent roads with minimal tax dollars,” and running of a “state-of-the-art toll collection operation.”

“In the report, the 2021 Grand Jury—like the Grand Jury before it—found no evidence of fiscal mismanagement by TCA,” the agencies also said in its press release.

“TCA respects the work of the volunteers who serve as the Grand Jury and appreciates the positive highlights in their report as an indication that we are on the right path as we move forward into the future,” TCA CEO Samuel Johnson added in the release.

According to the report, titled “$28 Billion for a $2.8 Billion Road,” the toll roads, between their inception and 2053, are tracking to collect $28 billion in total revenue—10 times more than the cost to construct them.

“By 2053, when the debt is scheduled to be retired, the roads will have consumed $28 billion—an amount that burdens the drivers, limits the TCA’s pricing options, and exceeds any reasonable cost per mile of road,” the new report states.

Based on a review of the TCA’s financial reports and capital improvement plans, the Grand Jury calculated the total cost to construct the toll roads at just shy of $2.8 billion. The Foothill/Eastern TCA’s toll road projects—the 133, 241 and 261—cost about $1.64 billion, while the San Joaquin Hills TCA required nearly $1.13 billion to construct the 73 toll road.

“Major construction was completed more than 20 years ago,” according to the report. “Since then, the TCA has invested in miscellaneous improvements, but none that significantly alter the ‘base price’ of the roads.”

Looking at revenues since the construction of the roads, the TCA has made more than $6 billion as of Fiscal Year 2020, from its collection of tolls, fines, DIFs and investments, the report showed. The TCA is expected to collect another $22.13 billion between the current fiscal year and 2053.

The TCA, however, said the report’s title ignores aspects of the public-private funding mechanism to build the roads, while references to the $28 billion didn’t consider that the figure “is based on 60 years of operations and assumptions as to how future Boards may operate over the next 30 years—decisions that clearly haven’t been made.”

“The report also fails to acknowledge the billions of dollars the roads provide as an economic driver for Orange County,” TCA’s press release stated. “Our region’s transportation system is core to the quality of life we enjoy, making this one of the best places in the world to live.”

The Grand Jury in the report noted that the TCA was likely to disagree with the $28 billion assessment, surmising that the agencies “hope to build additional roads with some of that money before 2053.”

As for the TCA’s obligations to pay off the bonds, the report explained that nearly $5.4 billion has already been paid as of FY 2020. The TCA currently owes another $4.8 billion in principal debt, as well as more than $5.5 billion in interest.

With the debt scheduled to be paid off by 2053, the expectation is for the TCA to dissolve and cease collecting tolls from motorists using the roads. The Grand Jury, however, reported that those would be “radical” steps and are “unlikely to happen.”

According to the report, a debt-free TCA wouldn’t be required to go out of business based on state law. It went on to note that in interviews with TCA management, some were “surprised” at the notion of eventually shutting down—”a complete reversal of the TCA’s public statements over the past three decades.”

“Currently, no TCA employees are assigned to implement a debt payoff followed by an agency sunset,” the report stated. “The professional staff are predominantly consistent in defending the TCA’s financial status and looking for ways to expand the scope and extend the life of the organization.”

As part of its response to the report, the TCA stated that governing boards have held strategic planning discussions and adopted capital improvement programs (CIPs) to help plan for the agencies’ financial futures.

The Foothill/Eastern TCA Board, the agencies said in the press release, “is also considering using reserves to retire $125 million in bonds in 2022 when they become callable.”

According to the report, the TCA currently only has one major capital project on its plate: the connection between the 241 and Express Lane on the SR-91 in Riverside. The project, expected to get underway in the coming years, is meant to resolve bottleneck issues on the interchange, as well as generate revenue.

As to the question of whether the roads will become part the state’s freeway system under the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), making them free to use, the Grand Jury stated it doesn’t believe such a thing will happen.

Speculating on the reasons why, the Grand Jury reported that if Caltrans takes over the roads, it could still decide to keep them as tolled routes “based on its own financial imperatives.” The report also noted that the transition to more electric vehicles is expected to reduce tax revenue from gas sales, so “some form of usage-based charge will have to replace it.”

The Grand Jury also pointed to the $400 million that local tolls provide annually and is applied to other local area projects—revenue that doesn’t fall under the purview of voters, legislators or drivers.

There also are benefits to toll roads or freeways with dedicated toll lanes, the report added, as they can be used to mitigate traffic or manage peak traffic, speed and air quality.

Most notably, the Grand Jury found, “knowledgeable officials, both elected and appointed, have expressed their opinion that the toll roads will never become freeways.”

“It’s possible that Caltrans will someday split the toll roads into toll lanes and free lanes,” the report concluded on the topic. “However, that will require very large projects to widen the roadways and construct the necessary safety features. As for the complete elimination of the tolls, that vision no longer applies.”

The tolls the TCA collects help fund the construction debt, additional improvements to the roads and cover costs to operate the agencies. The Grand Jury report expressed criticism over the agencies’ commitment to direct toll revenue toward the construction debt.

“The initial ($3 billion) debt was converted into more debt and then more debt, resulting in a $15 billion financial hole,” the report stated. “A toll dollar dropped into that hole has a one in five chance of landing on the original construction debt.”

The report further reiterated its previous statement that the TCA is looking to maintain its large debt obligation to perpetuate its own existence.

“Since the debt retirement date was moved to 2053, there have been actions taken to reduce payments, but no efforts to hasten the end date,” the Grand Jury said in the report.

The Grand Jury also said that over the years, the TCA has spent tens of millions of dollars on marketing and outreach campaigns, as well as legislative lobbying and advocacy—most recently an $850,000 allocation to oppose Sen. Patricia Bates’ legislation aimed at ending the 241 at Oso Parkway.

“The agency has a history of spending on activities that sustain its relationships with supportive entities,” according to the report. “The TCA’s large pool of unrestricted cash has been used to polish the agency’s image, perpetuate its life, bolster the positions of board members, and engender goodwill across a wide range of business and political leaders.”

Another source of revenue for the TCA since its inception has been DIFs—fees that developers have remitted to TCA member cities that are supposed to benefit from the toll roads.

The Orange County Grand Jury released another report on the TCA, finding that the toll road operators should draft a plan to pay off its debt by 2040 rather than the currently planned deadline of 2053. Photo: Shawn Raymundo

The TCA has explained that the amount of money a city has contributed is tied to the length of time a city has been a member, as well as the development that has and will occur.

San Clemente, in particular, has paid about $55 million over the life of the TCA, while San Juan Capistrano has paid $21 million and Dana Point $7 million. Irvine has paid the most ($308 million), while Rancho Santa Margarita has paid the least (about $1 million).

“For the past 10 years, DIFs have averaged $23.4 million per year, or 7% of the TCA’s total revenue,” according to the report, which questioned whether the agencies should continue to collect the fees.

“The toll roads have matured to the point that tolls can and should be the sole source of revenue,” the reported continued. “The roads cost less than $3 billion to build. Jurisdictions have already contributed over $750 million in DIFs and, at the current pace, their contribution will total $1 billion by 2030.”

In recent months, the topic of the DIFs has been closely tied to the ongoing dispute between San Clemente and the TCA over proposals to complete the southern extension of the 241, connecting it to the 5 Freeway.

The TCA’s Foothill/Eastern board voted unanimously in March 2020 to pursue an extension of Los Patrones Parkway as an untolled county thoroughfare, nixing the 241 extension proposals. However, recent action by the agencies, such as opposing Bates’ bills, have given San Clemente officials reasons to believe such plans aren’t actually off the table.

Citing some of the reasons the TCA gave to the Grand Jury regarding the extension, the report explained that new projects such as the 241 alignment would have to be justified by a traffic study, while it would be “short-sighted to preclude infrastructure that future generations might need.”

San Clemente on July 1 is set to walk away from the TCA as a member city—the first to do so. The city has also challenged its share of the DIFs, arguing that San Clemente has never benefited from the toll road because the southern alignment was never completed.

The Grand Jury report noted that the TCA is also motivated to keep the potential project alive, in part, because it may “eventually face a reckoning” on the issue of DIFs if it doesn’t deliver a road.

The report stated that “the repercussions of” San Clemente’s decision to withdraw from both TCA boards “are still evolving, with DIFs as a major point of consideration. Other cities are watching the situation.”

In a prepared statement from the city of San Clemente following the release of the report, Mayor Kathy Ward called it a “complete validation” of the city’s activities, and added that all Orange County cities owe San Clemente “a debt of gratitude for turning a bright light on the TCA’s nefarious activities.”

Mayor Pro Tem Gene James questioned why the TCA has not yet implemented “long-needed basic reforms” based on the Grand Jury’s findings in both reports.

“Our hard-earned taxpayer dollars aren’t some slush fund to be used by elected officials in other cities to enrich their friends and allies while undermining others, such as myself,” James said in the city’s press release.

The city, like the Grand Jury report, called on the TCA to draft a repayment plan so all debts are paid off by 2040, eliminate DIFs after the bonds have been paid while dedicating all fees for debt repayment until then, and look at the possibility of merging the two agencies.

Per state law, the TCA will have the coming weeks to issue a formal response to the Grand Jury report.

“While the Agencies respect the Grand Jury’s opinions and analysis, the Agencies do anticipate correcting substantive items in a formal response to the Grand Jury’s report,” the TCA said in its release.

San Clemente Times
By Shawn Raymundo
June 22, 2021

[Alameda County] Grand jury finds culture of secrecy, 'bad behavior' at helm of East Bay's Peralta college district

A new grand jury report finds an alarming level of dysfunction among the elected trustees running the East Bay’s Peralta Community College District, including “incivility and harsh treatment” of administrators, racial insensitivity, secret meetings about public business and interference in day-to-day operations.

The report by the Alameda County civil grand jury, released Monday, paints a devastating picture of elected officials failing the 50,000 students enrolled at the four campuses overseen by the Peralta district: Laney and Merritt colleges in Oakland, Alameda City College and Berkeley City College. Total enrollment is 19% lower now than a decade ago, a loss of 12,000 students.

The grand jury called its report “Broken Board Governance and Bad Behavior.” Among its findings:

• On July 18, a majority of the seven-member board secretly met with academic leaders to discuss business, “excluding the public and three trustees who would have disagreed with the purpose of the meeting.” The meeting violated the state Brown Act, the grand jury said. Another trustee conducted a similar meeting the next night.

• “We documented numerous instances of board members publicly bickering, finger-pointing and exhibiting hostile behavior during meetings” from 2018 through 2020. Examples included a “closed-door exchange when a board member ‘screamed and yelled’ at an administrator (who was) doing their job. ... In another instance, a board member accused an administrator of being untruthful, causing that administrator to leave the meeting in tears.”

• Between 2018 and 2020, the trustees interfered with Peralta chancellors’ recommended appointments and the hiring of managers who had been vetted. These actions “irreparably damaged” the relationship with the chancellors and “compromised the fair and independent hiring process.”

One chancellor, Regina Stanback Stroud, abruptly resigned in August 2020 after less than a year on the job, saying she couldn’t work with the board. Her blistering resignation letter listed 11 allegations against the trustees, including hostility toward Black administrators.

The grand jury identified none of the trustees or employees it referred to in the report. Elected board members serving during the time of the complaints and who are still trustees are the board’s current president, Cynthia Napoli-Abella Reiss, Vice President Nicky González Yuen, Bill Withrow, Linda Handy and Julina Bonilla.

“I remain committed to leading the Peralta Community College Board of Trustees and to working closely with the chancellor on issues identified in the report,” Napoli-Abella Reiss told The Chronicle.

Peralta’s interim chancellor, Jannett Jackson, issued a statement thanking the grand jury for its “constructive criticism” and said the trustees “have already begun deep work” on fixing the problems.

The grand jury offered a range of recommendations for repairing the college district, including requiring individual performance evaluations of the elected officials, to be discussed during public meetings.

The grand jury said it began its investigation after eight formal complaints were filed about the trustees in early 2020, alleging a range of misconduct or a “broken board culture.”

It heard from witnesses who said trustees regularly blocked chancellors’ efforts to fill key administrative positions, “hurting morale, contributing to staff flight and jeopardizing services to the students.” Others echoed Stroud’s allegations that some trustees were particularly abusive verbally toward Black administrators.

“By many accounts, key administrators were fleeing Peralta or not drawn to apply to work there, in part because of governance instability and board misconduct,” the report said.

Witnesses also said a trustee made side deals with a faculty union that undermined the district’s labor negotiations.

“Ultimately, the students these trustees are supposed to serve lose out,” the grand jury said, citing “an unhealthy atmosphere for a student population that so deserves a first-rate education.”

Even as the state warned that Peralta was in danger of insolvency and losing its accreditation, the trustees “failed to use a team approach to solve the problems,” the report said. Instead, the trustees engaged in “infighting, and some treating executive leadership as the enemy, while battling for control amongst themselves.”

County civil grand juries in California meet for one-year terms and are made up of residents who apply for the post or are nominated by a judge. They select which local government agencies and departments to investigate.

San Francisco Chronicle
By Nanette Asimov
June 23, 2021

Sunday, June 20, 2021

Riverside County’s short-term rental law is weak, [Grand Jury] report says

An ordinance enacted to crack down on noise, trash, and other problems associated with short-term vacation rentals in unincorporated Riverside County is flawed, according to a new report.

The civil grand jury report suggests ways to bolster enforcement of rules to rein in short-term rentals that become neighborhood nuisances. A revised ordinance is in the works, although it’s not clear when it might come before the Board of Supervisors.

“Without serious enforcement efforts, the ordinance and its rules will become another lost opportunity for real change and leave the neighbors of the (rentals) with little leverage to preserve their community’s quality of life,” the 16-page report reads.

County spokeswoman Brooke Federico said via email that the county is reviewing the report, which was posted online this month, and will provide “a thorough response” by the legal deadline. By law, agencies that are the subjects of grand jury reports must respond, usually within 90 days.

In an email, Supervisor Kevin Jeffries, who has voiced concerns about short-term rentals, said his office has heard “from residents who are concerned with the bad actors in the rental industry” who ruin things “for those who just want a little extra income while respecting their neighbors.”

“We are reviewing the grand jury findings to see where their ideas can be incorporated in the new regulations,” he said.

The jury is a rotating group of citizens empaneled by a judge to examine public agencies’ inner workings, point out problems and recommend improvements. According to the report, the number of short-term rentals, often leased through online services like Airbnb, grew from 268 in 2016 — the year the board passed its ordinance — to 567 in 2020, a 111% increase.

Short-term rentals brought in $1.6 million in tax revenue last year, the report found. But that often comes at a cost for neighbors dealing with late-night partying, traffic, illegal parking, trash-strewn lawns and other problems.

Cities in Riverside County have taken their own steps to address short-term rental nuisances. Last October, Murrieta’s City Council voted to limit short-term rentals to larger estates and rural areas.

While the short-term rental ordinance for unincorporated areas like Temecula Valley Wine Country requires permits for rentals and a complaint hotline, unlike other Southern California counties, it doesn’t require on-site rental inspections, proof of insurance or agreements to hold the county harmless from rental-associated liabilities, the jury found.

Noise violations can carry a $100 fine, but code enforcement officials said the fine is too low to encourage compliance, according to the report. More code enforcement staff could lead to better enforcement of short-term rental rules, and fees for short-term rental permits and renewals should be increased to pay for that added enforcement, the jury recommended.

The revised ordinance, as currently written, “does not provide enough protection for, nor does it allow input from neighboring residences of Short Term Rental properties,” the report reads.

The jury recommended the revised ordinance include requirements for property inspections and an indemnification agreement to shield the county, among other provisions.

Code enforcement, planning, and the Sheriff’s Department must “collaboratively pursue a process … (to) adequately address noise complaints” and databases of short-term rental certificates and transient occupancy tax certificates should be reconciled to make sure the county isn’t missing out on any revenue, the jury concluded.

Riverside Press-Gazette
By JEFF HORSEMAN
June 19, 2021

Sunday, June 13, 2021

[Solano County] Civil grand jury: Vacaville needs to address pension liability risk to city’s stability

Blog note: This report is an example of a jury following up on an earlier report, something we recommend to juries in our training program.

VACAVILLE — Vacaville needs to overhaul its pension liability model and establish an “annual contribution schedule to retire the unfunded liabilities over a 10- to 15-year period.”

That was among six recommendations attached to five findings by the 2020-21 Solano County civil grand jury, which revisited the issue of Vacaville’s troubled unfunded pension liability issue after a critical report two years earlier.

A 2018-19 civil grand jury concluded that the city’s benefit package “indicates a benefit cost that is not sustainable” and that “failure to address this problem could result in loss of employees and corresponding loss of services to citizens.”

“The city of Vacaville’s current employment benefits packages are unsustainable and offer benefits exceeding those provided by other California cities with similar population and home values,” one of the findings by the 2020-21 civil grand jury states.

The latest report also indicates that “while the City Council has taken steps to reduce the amount of unfunded liabilities, additional actions are required to maintain city services and fully fund future employee benefit obligations.“

The city has two pension plans through the California Public Employees’ Retirement System: an account for employees involved in public safety such as police and fire; and a miscellaneous account for the majority of remaining employees.

It also has an Other Post-Employment Benefits program, or OPEB. In this case, it is a lifetime health care benefit to current and retired employees, their spouses, and children up to the age of 26.

“The cost of CalPERS’ Family Premium health care rates rose an average of 8.5% per year from 1975 to 2020, with the current premium at $2,115 per month. The city has three employee benefit tiers and contributes up to 85% toward all active employees’ health care premiums and toward retiree health care premiums based on which tier they retire from,” the 2020-21 grand jury report states.

“Each tier is predicated on the date of hire and years of service,” the report adds.

As of June 30, 2019, according to the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, as cited by the grand jury, the combined unfunded pension and health care liabilities exceed $228 million.

That represents a $122.11 million unfunded liability in the public safety account and $87.75 million in the miscellaneous account. The OPEB liability is more than $80 million, the report states.

The total for all three, given those figures, is closer to $288.86 million.

Vacaville Mayor Ron Rowlett was not available for an interview due to a family matter. A call to the city manager’s office was not returned.

The city’s full liability amount is categorized as “high risk by the California State Auditor,” the grand jury reports.

The grand jury recommends, that the city “establish an annual contribution schedule to retire the unfunded liabilities over a 10- to 15-year period.”

It also recommends that the city “apply for American Rescue Plan Act funds to make additional contributions toward reducing pension and OPEB liabilities.”

The problem with the second of those recommendations is that the $12.67 million the city is expected to receive directly from the American Rescue Plan Act cannot be used to reduce unfunded pension liabilities, according to the Secretary of the Treasury guidelines.

“No recipient may use this funding to make a deposit to a pension fund,” according to a response from the Department of the Treasury to questions by the Daily Republic. “Treasury’s Interim Final Rule defines a ‘deposit’ as an extraordinary contribution to a pension fund for the purpose of reducing an accrued, unfunded liability.”

Whether or not funds can be used for the unfunded OPEB liability is more of a gray area, since health care retirement packages may be viewed differently than pension liabilities. The Department of Treasury was looking into the matter, its email response stated.

Moreover, those Rescue Plan funds are distributed directly to local jurisdictions, and uses of funds that might be available through an application are similarly restricted.

The civil grand jury also recommends “the city use an independent facilitator to negotiate all labor contracts” and that “all labor negotiations should address unfunded pension and (Other Post-Employment Benefits) liabilities.”

The grand jury further recommends that for Tier 1 and Tier 2 employees, the city “convert to a defined contribution health care benefits model.”

The city should re-establish the OPEB advisory committee “and act on the recommendations made by the prior committee,” the civil grand jury recommends. The report suggests the City Council simply dismissed the recommendations made by that committee.

Finally, the civil grand jury recommends the council “take actions to ensure that issues affecting pensions and OPEB liabilities continue to be reviewed regularly and publicly.”

If the city has made a formal response to the grand jury, as of Friday that response had not yet been posted on the Solano County Superior Court website.

Solano County Daily Republic
By Todd R. Hansen
June 12, 2021

Thursday, June 10, 2021

[Solano County] Grand jury: Pandemic response caused unnecessary family separation at Solano nursing homes

FAIRFIELD — The 2020-21 Solano County civil grand jury concluded residents of long-term nursing care facilities suffered unnecessary mental and health issues because they were kept away from their families during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“Isolation brought about by Covid-19 lockdowns caused unexpected mental and physical health issues,” the June 3 report released by the Solano County Superior Court states.

Dr. Bela Matyas, the county public health officer, said in an interview Monday that he completely agrees with the finding and said his department had great concerns about the state policy restricting visitors.

“That is a very valid point and it was something . . . in Solano County we were not very happy with,” said Matyas, who added that the county issued no restrictions on visitations to congregant facilities. He said the county was particularly unhappy about those care facility residents who died alone.

Matyas noted the same kind of precautions required for staff could have been implemented for visitors. That noted, he said he thinks the state reacted in an effort to save lives, and eventually eased many of the visitor restrictions when it realized it was possible to do so safely.

The grand jury recommended that in any future crisis, the county Public Health Division have the authority to establish “stringent screening protocols . . . to protect residents once visitors are allowed to enter the facilities.”

Matyas said the department is in full agreement.

“Largely, I agree with all (the grand jury’s) finding,” Matyas said. “I don’t think anything they said was untrue.”

The grand jury also concluded that nursing staff and other health care employees “need more training in infection control techniques including personal protection equipment use.”

The report states, “staff members have not been properly trained in implementing proper infectious disease protocols.”

The grand jury recommended that if requested by a facility, the “Solano County Division of Public Health provide support for improved staff training as well as ongoing mentoring.”

Matyas, while agreeing, said there is a financial reality that needs to be kept in mind. The facilities do not have the same resources as hospitals, for example, and hiring the best trained, additional training and other related costs are being balanced against keeping facility costs down.

The report also states that if authorized by the state, the county Public Health Division should help establish a system for monitoring the implementation of a new law that requires, among other points, “a plan . . . for infection prevention quality control.”

Other elements of Assembly Bill 2644, which went into effect Jan. 1, are to “ensure all health care professionals receive infection prevention and control training on an annual basis . . . have a full-time infection preventionist on staff to make recommendations and implement policies within the facility for infection control.”

The state Department of Public Health has oversight powers for the implementation of the law.

The report further states as a finding that “evidence provided by health professionals indicates staff brought (the coronavirus) into facilities, and recommended that if a facility requests, the county should “establish and continue to provide more stringent screening protocols of all staff.”

That was the primary cause of the largest and most deadly outbreak in the county at the Windsor Vallejo Nursing and Rehabilitation Center.

“We were the first county to post guidance for long-term care facilities and for hospitals (during the pandemic),” Matyas said.

The fifth and final finding issued by the grand jury states that “Ombudsman staff did not visit the skilled nursing facilities in Solano County from March 16, 2020, through Aug. 31, 2020.”

The report recommends, that because ombudsman staff can receive a waiver to enter locked-down facilities, that they should continue those duties.

“It is concerning that during a pandemic such as the one we are currently continuing to experience, local county agencies have such limited authority in keeping the vulnerable residents in nursing home facilities safe. It would be advantageous for the county, state and cities to work together to apply the laws and regulations that have been put in place to protect this population,” the report concluded.

As of Monday, the required responses from county Public Health, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Ombudsman Administration had either not been filed or had not been posted by the court.

Matyas said his department did send in a response, which included the notations that all recommendations concerning the department had already been implemented.

He also noted that despite the concerns raised in the grand jury report, only 64 of the 244 Covid-related deaths in the county were residents in long-term care, memory care or boarding care facilities.

Another 14 have died at state prisons in Vacaville, which are not under county jurisdiction.

Most people who have Covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, experience only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. Some people, especially older adults and those with underlying health problems, experience more severe illness such as pneumonia and at times, death.

The vast majority of people recover. The World Health Organization reports people with mild illness recover in about two weeks, while those with more severe illness may take three to six weeks to recover.

Solano County Daily Republic
By Todd R. Hansen
June 10, 2021

[Solano County] Civil grand jury reports Solano Family Justice Center not meeting mission

Fairfield — 2020-21 Solano County Civil Grand Jury concludes that the Solano Family Justice Center “does not meet” its mission, and a supervisory board investigates to determine whether the center should be removed from district control. Said that you need to start. Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare.

The grand jury said the Judiciary Center “is not functioning as a (one-stop shop) for victims and is already stressing stressful situations.”

The report also noted that the judicial center needs to find a way to be financially stable.

The director of the Justice Center and the district attorney disagree with many of the grand jury reports.

In fact, of the nine findings released in a report released by the Solano County High Court on June 1, the District Attorneys Office and the Judiciary Center fully agreed on only two, and the other two. I partially agreed.

The Justice Center has always worked to ensure that essential services are provided, including advocacy for domestic violence, court attendance, detention orders, crisis intervention, safety planning, and support for basic needs. Was signed by District Attorney Krishna Abrams and Center Director Angel. Mr. Agial said.

The report also provided center staff with “additional training to understand legal requirements (of the Family Justice Center), discrimination issues, and trauma-based care,” and “Managers on county employees and field employees.” It suggests that a “role” is needed. A partner “needs to be defined more clearly.

The grand jury said the current environment “is inconsistent with trauma-based care and is affecting the quality of service provided to victims.”

The reaction condemned the idea.

“We are committed to providing the highest quality care to all the people we serve,” said the answer.

The report stems from a review of a previous grand jury report, is also critical of the center, and includes claims that the center needs more community partnerships. There is.

It was repeatedly recommended in the latest reports.

The report states, “We are actively seeking additional on-site partners to provide the comprehensive services needed by victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.”

Abrams and Agiar replied that “the recommendation was implemented.”

“But we continue to strengthen cooperation within the community to better serve those in need,” the answer said.

Another finding is probably more directed at the supervisory board and county administration than at the district attorney’s office or the center itself, and about the center’s facilities.

A grand jury said, “The building that currently houses the Solano County Family Justice Center is inadequate and its location is unknown to many residents.” Make a plan to procure a facility in a better location."

The answer is, “We want to increase capacity in the future, but at this point SFJC maximizes all available space to ensure that all important services are delivered.”

The grand jury also recommended more public outreach to inform how residents can access the service.

The answer suggests that some facility plan has been created or is under development, but it does not say it directly. However, reaching out to potential community partners and residents is a regular part of the Center’s efforts, he said.

The grand jury report is also critical of public transport to facilities for “victims outside the fairfield” and recommends the establishment of satellite offices in Vallejo.

The reaction was that the center was in the center of the fairfield and Vallejo had a presence.

“We have increased our services to be onsite in Vallejo for those who have problems traveling to Fairfield,” said the answer. “We continue to work with our onsite and offsite partners. We will work together to provide services to victims in the event of transportation problems. To date, no victim has been denied service due to transportation problems. “

The report also states that it will add center-specific training for law enforcement agencies.

The required responses from the Supervisory Board and the Ministry of Health and Social Services have not yet been submitted.

California News Times
June 7, 2021

 


[Santa Cruz County] Grand jury report offers criticisms, commendations to Santa Cruz health leaders

 Work that saved lives needs to be publicized, grand jury states

SANTA CRUZ — A Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury report released just before the weekend praises the work of public health officials during the pandemic when it came to local contact tracing and testing efforts. But there was one downfall — access to information online.

The jury, through its research, found that employees in the Public Health Division and their facilitation of work with local agencies was the reason why the county ranks lower in COVID-19 cases, deaths and tests logged per 100,000 people. Through initiatives such as “Save Lives Santa Cruz County,” testing and tracing were promoted early.

Additionally, particularly during the second half of the pandemic, Public Health officials became the conduit to the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and used much of that funding to make sure that resources were available to all in Santa Cruz County — especially the areas with the lowest Healthy Places Index numbers.

Some of the good work was advertised and recognized. But because of missing information on the Health Services Agency website and the “Save Lives Santa Cruz County” website, the grand jury felt that more transparency would have mitigated the spread and upped morale further. More specifically, on the “Save Lives” page, the jury felt that the crisis the county had gone through was not reflected.

“We… believe that county residents would be happy to hear of some of their federal income taxes returning to the county,” the jury wrote just before its conclusion. “A significant example that lacks that kind of publicity is the establishment of the COVID-19 testing laboratory at UCSC where (the) Public Health Division directed over $1.5 million from the CARES funding.”

The report goes on to say that the UC Santa Cruz lab is a direct illustration of the cooperation between the university and public agencies. However, because of a lack of promotion of this information from any other parties involved besides the school, the effort itself to make the lab possible did not receive the attention it deserved.

Beyond being able to follow the bill, residents would also have benefitted from a more detailed “Get Tested” page on the Health Services Agency website, it was mentioned in the jury’s findings.

“The Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County’s web page listing COVID-19 testing sites does not adequately help residents find an appropriate testing site to fit their needs,” the jury wrote.

There are five recommendations that the Public Health Division alongside its communication managers must consider and respond to by Aug. 31. First, the Health Services Agency should include more information on each testing site so that people with extenuating circumstances can figure out which site would serve them best, the grand jury wrote.

Second, the agency should promote the “Save Lives” initiative more frequently; an example is to publish operational reviews weekly for the public to see what continues to happen behind the scenes to usher the county out of the health crisis. Third, the jury recommended the agency prepare weekly highlights from the periodic reports already written for the “Save Lives” initiative.

Fourth, officials should consider providing regularly scheduled and recorded video reports through the county website. This would mirror how Santa Clara County’s health officials have, daily and then seasonally, updated residents through their Facebook page.

Finally, the county should write a press release about how it supported the UC Santa Cruz lab opening.

Health Services Agency Director Mimi Hall said late Monday that she and her team are still assessing the jury’s report. Hall did not comment on which recommendations would be acted upon or how they would be implemented.

“We are pleased to be recognized for our efforts to save as many lives as possible during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Hall said. “This could not have been accomplished without the help of our community partners and the community’s willingness to follow recommendations and to think beyond themselves for the greater good.”

Hall said the Public Health Division’s limited resources led to it relying on the strength of partnerships both in and out of the health care realm. It was the partnerships that minimized harm to the community and kept the COVID-19 death toll from rising any higher.

“Our thoughts remain with the families of the 206 community members who lost their lives to COVID during the last 15 months,” she concluded.

Santa Cruz Sentinel
By MELISSA HARTMAN
June 7, 2021 at

Friday, June 4, 2021

Orange County grand jury slams sheriff’s failure to lead

 Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes holds a press conference in Santa Ana on Thursday, September 24, 2020 to discuss Orange County sheriff’s deputies involved in the fatal shooting in San Clemente of Kurt Andras Reinhold, 42, a homeless Black man. (Photo by Leonard Ortiz, Orange County Register/SCNG)

Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes holds a press conference in Santa Ana on Thursday, September 24, 2020 to discuss Orange County sheriff’s deputies involved in the fatal shooting in San Clemente of Kurt Andras Reinhold, 42, a homeless Black man. (Photo by Leonard Ortiz, Orange County Register/SCNG)

In a sheriff’s department that has seen its share of scandals, the one involving the improper booking of evidence raised particular concerns because it touches on the heart of the judicial system: the veracity of the information used to convict criminal defendants.

A 2019 audit from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) found that more than 30 percent of the evidence that deputies collected over a two-year period was booked late – sometimes by more than a month. That undermined at least 67 criminal cases, with the public defender arguing that this misbehavior tarnished thousands of cases.

Although the department disciplined some deputies and instituted new policies, an Orange County Grand Jury report found that no supervisors were punished and that the department still is doing an inadequate job assuring that problem doesn’t fester.

“An audit of OCSD department reports submitted from March 2018 forward has not been conducted to confirm that current OCSD policies and procedures regarding evidence booking and reporting are being followed,” the grand jury concluded. “There is no documentation confirming that OCSD lieutenants perform evidence booking spot audits consistently across all divisions.”

In testimony before the grand jury, sheriff’s officials admitted supervisors allowed deputies to engage in these late evidence bookings, according to news reports. Based on the department’s original audit, the grand jury noted that the evidence-booking problem stemmed from a “culture of idleness” rather than “criminal intent.”

Whatever the intent, the sheriff’s department needs to treat this matter with the utmost seriousness and better address what the report termed a “failure of leadership.” The sheriff has had plenty of time to improve its management controls, so there’s no excuse for any continuing booking deficiencies.

The grand jury credited the sheriff for taking immediate action following the Orange County Register’s revelation of the scandal, but it has yet to implement sufficient management changes.

The department has 60 days to respond to the report. Sheriff Don Barnes needs to immediately address lingering shortcomings, which will help prove that it has embraced the cultural changes the grand jury has recommended.

Orange County Register
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
June 2, 2021