Thursday, October 21, 2021

Some information about the [Calaveras County] Grand Jury

 Comments

Every year each county in California selects a set of jurors to serve on the Civil Grand Jury which then investigates the operations of county government. The Civil Grand Jury selects which officers, departments, and local agencies it will investigate based on prior grand jury recommendations, current juror recommendations, and citizen complaints.

As Calaveras County begins its Civil Grand Jury process for 2022, we have an opportunity to let the jury know which officers, departments, and local agencies we want them to investigate. This is an important opportunity for local citizens. Send in a Letter of Concern outlining what you believe needs to be investigated and provide as much supporting evidence as possible.

Submit your citizen complaint online at grandjury.calaverasgov.us , or via email to ccgrandjuryfore@gmail.com , or via U.S. mail to P.O. Box 1414, San Andreas, CA 95249. Your complaint will be kept confidential. It is important to remember this is a CIVIL Grand Jury examining COUNTY officers, departments, and agencies.

You can also review all previous grand jury reports online to see the results of past investigations. In 2019-2020, the Grand Jury produced seven reports which, in part, discovered property taxes being collected to build a college in Valley Springs that has never materialized and that animal control facilities and operations are severely inadequate and unsafe.

In 2016, an investigation into the sheriff’s department system for filing complaints against the department revealed a lack of consistency by the department in investigating the complaints filed, which meant complaints were not always addressed. Grand jury investigations can also reveal that a department is operating well, such as the county recycling program, which was found to be meeting its goals in 2016.

The Community Action Project and the Calaveras Planning Coalition urge you to stay involved in local issues. Learn more at calaverascap.com.

Megan Fiske, Outreach Coordinator
Community Action Project/Calaveras Planning Coalition

Calaveras Enterprise
October 20, 2021

Saturday, October 2, 2021

Sutter supervisors respond to [Sutter County] grand jury on fire department, Gray Avenue property

 Oct. 1—The Sutter County Board of Supervisors filed responses last week to the findings of the 2020/21 Grand Jury related to Sutter County Fire and Emergency Services and the Gray Avenue property.

The Grand Jury made five recommendations regarding the Sutter County Fire and Emergency Services. The grand jury recommended the board direct staff to identify a sufficient permanent funding source of funding for each fire jurisdiction in the county that maintains pace with rising population, increased number of structures, equipment costs, optimal manning, salaries comparable to neighboring counties, and workers' compensation insurance costs before the end of fiscal year 2022/23.

Supervisors said the recommendation had not been implemented yet but will be by the 2022/23 timeframe. Staff estimate funding sources will be identified by June 2022. The county has established a Fire Services Ad Hoc Committee to address the financial situation within the fire department and research possible solutions including an increase to the existing special fire tax, a new property-based tax assessment to cover all areas covered by Sutter County Fire and a possible sales tax measure. Sutter Fire received a FEMA SAFER grant for additional staff and will reapply in 2022.

The second recommendation was for the board to immediately find or create alternate revenue streams such as recouping costs from motor vehicle accidents involving commercial and reckless or impaired drivers. In their response, supervisors said the recommendation will be implemented by Dec. 1. Sutter County Fire presented an ordinance to the board to address cost recovery from motor vehicle accidents. The ordinance will not have a direct financial impact on the public as the fees are already paid by auto insurance policies of those involved in at-fault accidents.

The grand jury recommended that the board start a planned campaign to educate the public on the need to increase the amount and scope of the special fire tax to include the reset of the county and to include a cost-of-living adjustment for the next open election cycle. The board said this recommendation will be implemented by April 2022. Once it is confirmed what action will be taken to secure needed funds, county staff will schedule town hall meetings to discuss the financial situation of the department.

Fourth, the grand jury recommended that the county administrative officer (CAO) develop and institute a viable capital improvement plan for firefighting equipment in Sutter County before the end of fiscal year 2022/23. Supervisors said this has already commenced with the adoption of the recent 2021/22 budget and will be completed by the end fiscal year 2022/23. Funding issues for the fire department need to be resolved before any capital improvement plan can be viable, according to the board's responses.

Finally, jurors recommended the board of supervisors direct staff to work with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for consolidating all county service areas (CSAs) and fire protection districts into one that is run by one paid fire chief by the end of fiscal year 2022/23. The board said this has not been implemented but a related municipal services review process of CSAs F,C and D has begun. The review is being done to prepare for the Sutter Pointe Phase One Response Plan.

Gray Avenue property

The grand jury provided four recommendations about the former Kmart location at 850 Gray Ave., Yuba City, that has been vacant for the last seven years. The county plan is to consolidate and house the Health and Human Services Department personnel and equipment onto this property.

It was recommended that the board of supervisors oversee the CAO to create a policy that provides guidance and procedures for efficient leasing, purchasing, management and disposal of property to be completed in 120 days.

"This recommendation will not be implemented," supervisors said in response. "It may be beneficial to adopt a policy regarding leasing, but subjecting transactions to a 120-day limitation may not be realistic as every transaction is different."

The second recommendation from the grand jury was completed as the purchase of the building is complete. Third, jurors recommended the CAO work through the Department of Development Services to complete the renovation of the facility and relocation of HHS by the summer of 2025. The supervisors said this will not be implemented. The response said the cost of building materials and labor has made construction under the current plan cost prohibitive. County staff is working to revise the design and layout of space to incorporate post-pandemic work environments.

"The timeline suggested by the grand jury may not be feasible given current construction conditions," the supervisors' response read.

Finally, the grand jury recommended supervisors request the CAO provide semi-annual reports on financing, expenditures, renovation and relocation progress beginning six months after the close of escrow. The board of supervisors said the recommendation will be implemented and that bi-annual reports will be provided to supervisors beginning this December.

To access the full grand jury report and responses, visit suttercourts.com.

Appeal-Democrat
David Wilson
October 1, 2021

[Orange County] The saga continues: Irvine reconsidering plan for controversial Great Park

Blog note: This story refers to several grand jury reports on this project (scroll down)

In the beginning, the Great Park in Irvine was envisioned as the second-coming of New York’s iconic Central Park.

Bogged down for years with accusations of cronyism and improper management, the park hasn’t lived up to its original billing. Now, the city of Irvine is considering an update of its master plan of the park.

Located at the site of the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, the park today has a large sports complex, a soccer stadium, an amphitheater, a skating rink and a large orange balloon.

“Really, when we think about the Great Park, it’s a big sports facility, which is great,” Irvine Vice Mayor Tammy Kim said Tuesday during a City Council meeting. “I know that there’s residents here and I know myself, really want to see the ‘park,’ in Great Park.”

City staff will spend the next two months seeking the public’s input on future plans for the park.

Joel Belding, deputy director of planning and development, said during a presentation to the council that staff intend to consider residents’ comments and then devise a roadmap on how to move forward with the planning of the park in January, with a presentation to the council for consideration.

Outreach is expected to include in-person meetings at the Great Park, virtual meetings, meetings with homeowners’ associations, recorded videos and interactive online tools for people to contribute to the design process of the park.

Staff will also look for public opinion on two major projects in the park, a long-awaited botanical garden and the future of the FivePoint Amphitheatre, which is currently considered temporary. The city posted on Twitter earlier this week that there have been a spike in noise complaints tied to two concerts at the amphitheater. The city said it’s working to rectify the issue with the help of Live Nation, the operator of the venue.

During the meeting, the council began moving forward on a few projects in the Great Park, including the botanical garden.

“But I believe this council, all of us here, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create something beautiful and awe-inspiring that can be appreciated now and for future generations,” Kim said. “I want to use that opportunity to build a world-class garden where people from all over the world and all over this country will want to visit.”

Following comments from community members in favor of the garden, the council provided direction for city staff to find a location for the project.

“I hope that today’s meeting leads to a final site designation and path to construction of the long-promised and much-desired, world-class botanical garden,” said Teena Spindler, president of the nonprofit Great Park Garden Coalition. “As you know, the garden has been in the plan since the very beginning in the original master plan, and has been confirmed through public outreach surveys over the years.”

Mayor Farrah Khan suggested that the garden could go in the park’s planned Cultural Terrace, a 236-acre portion of the park. On Tuesday, the council approved a contract with the IBI Group, an architectural service company, to help with the development of the terrace.

Also at the meeting, the council considered whether UCI Health could be a sponsor of the Great Park. Under the proposal, the organization would pay the city about $5.7 million for a 10-year agreement. Ultimately, the council decided to reconsider the item at a later meeting after several members expressed concerns about the proposed sponsorship.

Councilman Anthony Kuo was concerned that the exclusivity part of the sponsorship would inhibit the city from entering into agreements with other healthcare groups. Kim agreed with Kuo and suggested that the deal didn’t bring in enough money for the city, considering it’s in a big media market.

“We look at this and we think, ‘Oh, it’s a lot of money,’ but it actually isn’t compared to what they’re getting,” Kim said.

The public voted to turn the military base into the then-named Orange County Great Park in 2002. The city had big plans for the park, but they never came to fruition.

In 2013, Irvine hired Hagen, Streiff, Newton & Oshiro (HSNO) to conduct an investigation into why more than $250 million was spent to develop 88 acres of the 1,300-acre Great Park.

For years, the Great Park was mired in controversy, with residents claiming it hadn’t remotely met expectations as the so-called Central Park of the West.

Three grand jury reports were produced regarding the park in 2006, 2010 and 2015. The first investigation criticized city officials for a lack of transparency, while the second questioned the financial structure of the project. The third concluded that “from the outset, the project was poorly managed and did not follow conventional principles,” and “there seemingly was no effective oversight over invoices, contract compliance or quality control.”

HSNO conducted an initial audit for $240,000, then withdrew it in 2015 and replaced it with a second audit. Costs climbed to $1.7 million. HSNO’s final report concluded that the project was embroiled in financial mismanagement, leading to the waste of tens of millions of dollars between 2005 and 2012. Findings included that former Mayor Larry Agran, then chairman of the Great Park Corp., misled the public, beginning in 2006 with an understatement of the cost of the park. Agran currently sits on the City Council.

The saga continued in 2020, when HSNO surrendered its accounting license after a legal battle with a state oversight agency that claimed the firm “failed to comply with professional standards, engaged in numerous acts of negligence, and disseminated false and misleading information.”

Most recently, homeowners in the Great Park neighborhoods have expressed disapproval of special-assessment taxes they have to pay toward the development of the Great Park. In July, the City Council decided to drop “Orange County” from the original name of the park.

Los Angeles Times
BY BEN BRAZILSTAFF WRITER
SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

SFMTA responds to [San Francisco] civil grand jury report on Van Ness Improvement Project

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- San Francisco's Government Audit and Oversight committee met on Thursday to discuss a Civil Grand Jury report on the Van Ness Improvement Project.

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. Many say it's taking too long and creating a mess on Van Ness.

The meeting was a chance for the SFMTA to respond to the Civil Grand Jury's June report. It found the project was over budget and over time. Bus Rapid Transit passenger service on Van Ness is slated to begin in early 2022, three years later than originally promised at the start of construction.

"It's a mess."

Why is the Van Ness Improvement Project taking so long? That's the question a new San Francisco Civil Grand Jury report answers.

Business owners like Farzin Kaveh of Audio Symphony have been impacted by the construction for years.

Delays and cost overruns caught the attention of San Francisco's 19 person Civil Grand Jury. In June, it found that the cost of the project had increased to $346 million dollars, 23% over budget.

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.

At a Government Audit and Oversight Committee meeting on Thursday, Supervisor Rafael Mandelman acknowledged what the delays have really cost the city.

"Frankly, it's a project that I think has undermined confidence in city government," said Mandelman.

The SFMTA is now responding to the Civil Grand Jury's findings.

"Improving project delivery is something that is really important to us. We know that we're not where we need to be," said Tom Maguire, SFMTA Director of Streets Division.

Walsh Construction is the prime contractor for the project.

The Van Ness Improvement Project, which spans approximately two miles of Van Ness Avenue, has become too much for some San Francisco businesses.

"It's up to us to hold Walsh accountable and we have some techniques for doing that. Walsh is supposed to be a partner and some of the issues that were called out by the Civil Grand Jury are instances where we weren't really feeling that partnership," said Maguire.

Simone Manganelli is a member of 2020-2021 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury.

"Yes, we understand that the contractor bears some of the responsibility for some of the problems that were happening but the MTA's MO should be the buck stops here," said Manganelli.

The conversation about the project's shortcomings will continue next week, but Supervisor Mandelman made a motion for it to be in closed session.

Manganelli said he understands disputes and contract modifications might make that necessary.

However, as a civil grand juror and a San Franciscan I really hope that the closed session discussion is summarized for us in an open session or in some public document."

Walsh Construction did not comment at Thursday's hearing. ABC7 News I-TEAM reporter Melanie Woodrow reached out to them and did not hear back.

ABC News
By Melanie Woodrow
October 1, 2021