Placer [County] Grand Jury investigates county response to homelessness

The Placer County Grand Jury took a close look at homelessness issues this year, finding homelessness is placing a burden on taxpayers and public safety.

Through multiple interviews and a visit to the homeless camp at the DeWitt Center, the team of 19 grand jurors worked to understand the challenges and barriers the homeless experience in entering shelters and available services to gain insight to the day-to-day personnel and operations that work directly with the homeless and to identify who in Placer County takes ownership and responsibility for the strategies used in supporting the homeless.

“The grand jury’s investigation uncovered the fact that there is no single owner or leader in county staff overseeing the homeless issue,” stated the grand jury report, which was released June 30. “The lack of information from Health and Human Services made it difficult to compile specific facts and figures needed to accurately report the number of homeless currently residing in Placer County.”

The grand jury also highlighted that Health and Human Services, which aids the homeless through several programs, “lacks knowledge as to the specific amount of funds available, allocated to the homeless, and how it is spent on remedying the problem.”

The report stated the grand jury’s attempt to gain financial information was an “act of futility” because county officials were not able to provide answers.

Through interviews, grand jurors learned reasons why the homeless at DeWitt refuse to enter a facility. Many have social, medical and mental health issues, which may impede their ability to make healthy, wise decisions that would improve their overall well-being, the report stated. Another factor is most campers don’t want to conform to authority, maintain a schedule or assume any responsibilities, as would be required in a clean and sober high-barrier facility.

Of the nearly 100 homeless who were camping at DeWitt while the grand jury was conducting its investigation, jurors discovered 98 percent decline services offered by county representatives twice a week.

Jurors discovered alcohol and drug use was prevalent in the encampment, resulting in an average of one overdose a week and crimes such as assaults, thefts, drugs and public intoxication. Placer County Sheriff’s Office statistics show 30 percent of calls for service (between March 2021 and February 2022) were transient related in North Auburn (where the DeWitt Center is located) compared with 7 percent of calls for the rest of Placer County. The county employs a Homeless Liaison Team, which includes six deputies who patrol the homeless 24/7.

“Looking at the statistics provided, the grand jury questions how only six deputies can be expected to cover the entire county without drawing other deputies away from their assigned communities and duties,” the report stated. The jurors went on to say the Homeless Liaison Team was doing an “effective job” and the officers have “excellent rapport and are caring and compassionate when dealing with the campers.”

The grand jury sought to determine total funding spent on homeless programs by the county as part of the Health and Human Services' quarter-billion-dollar budget. County officials interviewed could not expound on this subject because of their lack of knowledge of the financial aspect relating to homeless services, the report stated.

“Because this financial information for homeless services is not available for review, neither the grand jury, nor the public, have any basis for understanding whether funds are being spent responsibly or effectively,” the report stated.

The report stated the homeless population was on the rise due to the Martin v. Boise ruling, which allows campers to not be removed from their encampment if there are no adequate shelters available to house them, such as low-barrier facilities.

The county’s camping ordinance is “inadequate,” the report stated, as it doesn’t discourage the continued use of encampments. According to the report, only 55-60 percent of campers at the Placer County Government Center are from Placer County.

The report also highlighted the three previous contracted consultant reports on the homeless issue. The reports, which span nearly three decades, “address the same issues and appear to have similar findings and recommendations and have been ignored by previous and current county officials.”

The report concludes with recommendations for Placer County, including designating a homeless “czar” to oversee all county services and finances for the homeless. The recommendations include creating a Placer County homeless expense report for the public.

Their recommendations also call for the county and all cities within Placer County to obtain funding and establish their own low-barrier homeless facilities. The report calls on the county Board of Supervisors to pass an “effective and enforceable” ordinance to manage and remove unsanctioned camping on county property.

The recommendations also call on the Board of Supervisors to compare and evaluate the two prior homeless consulting reports “to determine why little or no action has been taken on the previous and almost identical report recommendations.”

Placer County has until Oct. 1 to issue a response to the grand jury’s findings and recommendations.

"We appreciate the Grand Jury’s interest and attention to this challenging issue," said Acting Placer County CEO Jane Christenson. "At the Board of Supervisors’ direction, staff has expanded our services and on-site presence in support of the unsheltered residents camping at the government center. Many of the recommendations identified by the Grand Jury have been developed and we look forward to sharing those details with the Grand Jury in our formal response, which should shed further light on the county’s ongoing efforts to assist the unhoused in our community."

Placer County homelessness was just one issue the grand jury investigated; its report also includes an examination of the city of Lincoln’s financial state, cyber security in Placer County and the city of Colfax’s citizen complaint process.

The full Placer County Grand Jury 2021-22 Final Report is available online at http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/general-grandjury-reports.shtml.

Gold Country Media
Traci Newell
July 09, 2022

Sutter Co. Grand Jury report released

Responses noted on fire and emergency services, Gray Avenue property

The 2021/22 Sutter County Grand Jury report was released Friday and along with new areas of focus such as Live Oak and Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health, responses to hot-button topics such as the county’s fire and emergency services and its Gray Avenue property received an update.

During the most recent election on June 7, the county’s efforts to properly fund fire and emergency services was a visible point of contention, along with its handling and purchase of the former Kmart location at 850 Gray Ave. in Yuba City.

In the 2020/21 Grand Jury report, there were five recommendations regarding Sutter County Fire and Emergency Services. Those recommendations included the following:

– The Board of Supervisors direct staff to identify a sufficient permanent 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 the Fiscal Year 2022/23.

– The Board of Supervisors direct staff to immediately find or create alternate revenue streams such as recouping costs from motor vehicle accidents involving commercial and reckless or impaired drivers.

– The Board of Supervisors direct staff to immediately start a planned campaign to educate the public on the need to increase the amount and scope of the CSA F Special Fire Tax to include the rest of the county and to include a Cost-of-Living adjustment for next open election cycle.

– The Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrative Officer to develop and institute a viable capital improvement plan for firefighting equipment in Sutter County before the end of the Fiscal Year 2022/23.

– The Board of Supervisors direct staff to work with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for consolidating all county service areas and Fire Protection Districts into one that is run by one paid supervisory fire chief by the end of Fiscal Year 2022/23.

After the Sutter County Board of Supervisors unveiled their responses in late September 2021, the 2021/22 Sutter County Grand Jury report followed up on those answers.

In its search to “identify a sufficient permanent source of funding,” the county said that recommendation has yet to be implemented. According to county staff, the county will implement this recommendation by fiscal year 2022/23.

To help with that effort, the county made available a community feedback survey that is currently on its website. The county also released a flier that was mailed out on June 17. In it, the county attempted to answer some of the community’s most pressing questions on the issue.

The 2021/22 Sutter County Grand Jury report said the county has implemented the second recommendation regarding alternate revenue streams.

“This recommendation has been implemented,” the report stated. “Through county staff interviews, the Grand Jury was informed that as of 1 Jan 2022, the cost recovery fees from motor vehicle accidents are being collected through a vendor hired by the county. The billing will be quarterly.”

The third recommendation with details about informing the public was partially implemented, the Grand Jury said. Part of this implementation was the release of the county’s community survey. However, the Grand Jury said the county “has not yet decided what route of action it will take to secure the needed funds.”

The fourth recommendation that highlighted firefighting equipment was implemented, according to the Grand Jury.

“The Sutter County Fire Chief has a capital improvement plan ready but the county does not have a capital improvement fund yet,” the Grand Jury report said. “Some high priority firefighting equipment was purchased through grant funding. Interviews of county staff revealed that the capital improvement fund will be implemented once new funding streams are implemented.”

The Grand Jury said the final recommendation of “consolidating all CSAs and Fire Protection Districts” has not been implemented.

“There was no study or Municipal Services Review (MSR) report presented by LAFCO at their November 2021 meeting,” the Grand Jury report said. “In accordance with the County Administrative Officer (CAO) this MSR will be presented at the next LAFCO meeting in Feb. 2022. LAFCO has continued the MSR to the 12 May 2022 meeting and subsequently continued it to the 14 July 2022 meeting.”

Gray Avenue

In its 2020/21 report, the Grand Jury provided four recommendations about the former Kmart location in Yuba City that has been vacant for several years. The county’s plan was to consolidate and house the Health and Human Services Department personnel and equipment on this property, the Appeal previously reported.

In the 2020/21 Grand Jury report, there were four recommendations for the handling of the Gray Avenue property. Those recommendations included the following:

– The Board of Supervisors oversee the County Administrator to create a policy that provides guidance and procedures for efficient leasing, purchasing, management and disposal of property to be completed in 120 days.

– The County purchase the Gray Avenue Property as discussed during their February 9 and March 23, 2021 meetings, to be completed prior to June 2021.

– The County Administrator work through the Development Services Department to complete the renovation of the facility and relocation of the HHS Services to be finished by summer of 2025.

– The Board of Supervisors request the County Administrator provide a semi-annual report on financing, expenditures, renovation and relocation progress beginning six months after the close of escrow.

After receiving responses, the 2021/22 Sutter County Grand Jury report provided further comments.

According to the new report, the county has not implemented a “policy that provides guidance and procedures.” In a response, the Sutter County Board of Supervisors said it disagreed with the finding and recommendation.

“This recommendation will not be implemented,” supervisors previously said. “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 Grand Jury said the board’s response “misunderstood the Grand Jury recommendation to have a policy in place in 120 days.” It said the county was ultimately made aware of the misunderstanding.

“Interviews with county staff revealed the Counties [sic] position is that it has various rules and regulations they follow and do not see the need for a property leasing, purchasing, management, and disposal policy at this time,” the 2021/22 report said.

The Grand Jury said the recommendation to purchase the property was implemented when the county completed its purchase in June 2021.

The third recommendation has not been implemented. According to the Grand Jury, county officials said the county “does not have any firm plans for the renovation or the future use of the property.”

The county said because of the “high cost of construction,” new plans are being considered, including the demolition of the existing structure on the property and building a “new multi-use two-story structure, selling the property, or bringing in a big box store to occupy the property and share in the tax revenue with the city.”

The Grand Jury also said its recommendation of having the Sutter County Board of Supervisors review a semi-annual report has not been implemented.

“The Grand Jury checked the BOS agendas December 2021 through April 2022 and there was no report presented on the financing, expenditures, renovation and relocation progress of the Grave Ave property,” the report said.

Sutter County Jail

In its 2021/22 report, the Sutter County Grand Jury (SCGJ) focused on the Sutter County Jail and the Tri-County Youth Rehabilitation Campus in Marysville, which includes the Tri-County Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility (Juvenile Hall) and the Maxine Singer Youth Guidance Center (Camp Singer).

“The SCGJ found that the staff at both agencies take pride in their facilities and work hard to ensure the safety of the adult inmates and youth,” the new report said. “They also provide the adults and youth with programs that can better their lives and prepare them for the future. The SCGJ also discovered that the Sutter County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) is providing service to the community while being understaffed and underpaid.”

The report’s findings include:

– The Sutter County jail and Tri-County Youth Rehabilitation Campus staff work hard to ensure the safety and well-being of their adult inmates and youth.

– The Sutter County jail and Tri-County Youth Rehabilitation Campus provide inmates and youth with programs and opportunities.

– Drugs are still getting into the Sutter County jail.

– The Sutter County jail is under-staffed.

– Sutter County Sheriff’s Office staff are underpaid, which can lead to low morale and high staff turn-over.

The report’s recommendations include:

– Sutter County should invest in a drug-sniffing dog for use in the jail.

– Sutter County should follow the recommendations presented in the Sutter County Sheriff’s Office Organization Assessment and Staffing Study regarding the hiring of additional jail staff.

– The excellent, in-depth report by Management Partners on the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department budget should be a cause for action for the Sutter County Board of Supervisors.

The city of Live Oak

Along with its report on Sutter County Jail and juvenile facilities, the 2021/22 Grand Jury report also focused on the city of Live Oak and its city council. In its summary, the Grand Jury gave a scathing review of the council and city.

“The City Council and the administration of the City of Live Oak have not diligently and judiciously served the citizens of Live Oak for several years, and this past year is no exception. In 2021 dysfunction has been the state of affairs in the City of Live Oak because of the failed performance of the city council in its due diligence duty to the people of that community,” the report said. “... The Sutter County Civil Grand Jury for 2021/2022 investigated areas of dysfunction on the city council relating to its inability to fill a vacant seat on the council. This problem was compounded by an extended period of lack of consensus to pass a budget. Additionally, the council was unable to pass authorizations to collect taxes on the Community Financial Districts (CFDs) and special assessments for the city.”

The report’s findings include:

– When the Live Oak City Council did not appoint a council person to fill the vacant council seat it cost the citizens of Live Oak financially.

– The City Council of Live Oak did not pass the budget in a timely fashion.

– The City Council of Live Oak scheduled a budget workshop to resolve the budget deadlock, but all members of the council did not attend.

– The City Council of Live Oak did not pass the authorization to collect the annual CFDs and special assessments by September 2021, therefore these could not be added to the tax rolls.

– This year’s CFD taxes could not be collected. This has cost the city over $800,000 in budget reserves.

The report’s recommendations include:

– The City Council of Live Oak will pass the budget in a timely fashion.

– The City Council of Live Oak will establish budget workshop dates with sufficient time to resolve any concerns prior to voting on the budget resolution.

– All members of the city council will participate in any scheduled budget workshops to understand the proposed budget and to discuss areas of concern. 

– The City Council of Live Oak will pass the authorization to collect the annual CFDs and special assessments in a timely manner, so that these levies can be added to the current year tax rolls.

Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health

A final area of focus for the 2021/22 Sutter County Grand Jury was Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health, a joint powers authority between Sutter and Yuba counties serving public behavioral health needs which had a 2021/22 fiscal year budget of $55 million.

“On our site tour in the fall of 2021, Sutter County Grand Jury observed several safety concerns. Some of these concerns were also expressed by SYBH staff. The grand jury also observed the state of deterioration of buildings, the lack of general upkeep of the grounds, and the parking lot with large holes and blacktop erosion,” the report said. “This prompted the grand jury to further investigate how the main campus of the SYBH deteriorated to such a state and how safety issues on the Psychiatric Health Facility (PHF) were addressed. The Sutter County Grand Jury reviewed reports from California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) regarding the PHF. This led to further investigation of other budgetary concerns after reviewing public records. After extensive research, interviews, and tours, Sutter County Grand Jury found many safety issues on the SYBH PHF unit, deterioration of the 1965 Live Oak Blvd campus, capital improvement delays, and budgetary mishandling.”

The report detailed 15 different findings by the Grand Jury. Some of those findings included:

– The patient rooms at the Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health (SYBH) Psychiatric Health Facility (PHF) contain multiple Ligature Points. Among staff and administrative personnel interviewed, there was a general awareness of these issues but no apparent sense of urgency to address them.

– Based on site observations of the SYBH PHF Unit, various doors did not appear secure, leaving certain areas potentially vulnerable to unauthorized patient access.

– The perimeter fencing at the SYBH PHF Unit’s outdoor recreation area is vulnerable to the exchange of contraband, due to easy public access. It creates a sense of being “locked” in, which is not welcoming or comforting for the patients.

– SYBH use of private security is inefficient and lacks good use of the services.

– The beds in the Isolation Rooms at the PHF Unit are an old version that leave the patient in an uncomfortable position if restraint is required.

– Based on those interviewed and a review of budgetary documents, it appears some SYBH and Health and Human Services (HHS) management and key fiscal staff lack sufficient knowledge/understanding of the budget practices. This includes MHSA and Realignment funding.

– Based on site observations, review of county plans for the Gray Ave Building, and SYBH administration interviews, the 1965 Live Oak Blvd Building is no longer adequate to house the Psychiatric Health Facility (PHF) and other SYBH offices/programs.

The report made 17 different recommendations based on the Grand Jury’s findings. Some of those recommendations included:

– SYBH and the County must take the Ligature Points concerns seriously. SYBH needs to perform a needs assessment to clearly identify the issues and submit a comprehensive request to the County. The County, in turn, needs to share a sense of urgency and prioritize funding as soon as possible. These should be resolved by July 31st, 2022.

– SYBH needs to perform an assessment of all access points with the PHF Unit and address any necessary modifications to ensure proper security and controls are in place for the safety and well-being of both the patients and the staff while mitigating AWOL opportunities.

– SYBH needs to re-evaluate where contracted security services are located on the grounds and the scope of services provided.

– SYBH and the County need to address the importance of ensuring the comfort of patients in need of isolation and possible restraint. SYBH needs to identify and submit a replacement request to the County. The County in turn needs to recognize the importance by prioritizing funding by July 31st, 2022.

– The County needs to work with HHS to perform a needs assessment and begin developing a long-term strategy to address the clear need for a new facility for SYBH which includes housing the PHF Unit.

Members of the 2021/22 Sutter County Grand Jury included Michael Lewis Ayote, DeJuan Jeray Glover, Carl Edward Hall, Dr. Jennifer Anne Kellogg, Tina Ridinger-Miguel, Douglas James Heacock, Sukhvinder Singh Bhungal, Gary Michael Underhill, Gisela Marie Hamilton, Diane Carol Leighton, Margaret Ellan Walker, David Phillip Boyer, Makhan Singh Dhillon, Lorri Lynn Han, Josiah Ogden Hoffman, Steven Bradley Reyes, Mary Hannah Tice, and Makayla Lynn Fawcett. Randy B. Helvey was the 2021/22 Sutter County Civil Grand Jury foreperson.

AppealDemocrat.com
By Robert Summa
June 27, 2022

[Butte County] Grand Jury investigates complaints against Oroville

OROVILLE — The Butte County 2021/2022 Grand Jury report was released Monday with investigations into the Oroville government, Butte County Behavioral Services, the Butte College Police Academy and more.

In looking into Oroville’s city government, the focus was on multiple complaints surrounding mismanagement and violations, particularly aimed at the Oroville City Council, Mayor Chuck Reynolds and City Administrator Bill LaGrone.

Complaints and accusations were rounded up in the Grand Jury Report as follows:

• Conflicts of interest
• Improper public contract awards
• Hiring mismanagement
• Violations of city policies, procedures, the city charter and the city code
• The improper selling of city property
• Bullying
• People holding more than one offices

The report does not specify who made the allegations.

Reynolds responded to the report and accusations and said he believes much of it comes from former staff and council members.

“What that is is ex-council members who are disgruntled and just trying to cause trouble,” Reynolds said. “We read it the other day in closed session and it wasn’t much. All the stuff was former council members. I think it kind of speaks for itself.”

Reynolds went on to note that the timing coincides with the coming November election.

“Any time you have somebody come in to do work and get things done, it’s always the people who were sitting around doing nothing who get offended,” Reynolds said.

To investigate the allegations, the Grand Jury looked at emails between elected officials and city staff and conducted interviews as well as questionnaires.

The Grand Jury interviewed LaGrone with questions about the complaints and then sent follow-up questions to both LaGrone and city staff.

According to the report, there was a lack of cooperation from the city in the investigation.

“The responses by the mayor, City Council and city administrator were incomplete, necessitating the (Butte County Grand Jury) to resend multiple requests in order to ‘ferret out’ information requested,” the report reads. “The mayor and City Council appeared to run everything through the city administrator. It is not clear who is in charge. In response to these requests, the city administrator and city staff provided incomplete answers, did not respond by the due dates, or at all.”

The report said that the jury had to then resort to a questionnaire that was sent to individual council members. The report said LaGrone responded and told the Grand Jury that “the council speaks with one voice.” Councilors ended up sending back identical responses.

It was later discovered that the city of Oroville did not have an updated Policies and Procedures Manual, cited in the report as PPM.

“(The Butte County Grand Jury) members searched for policies and procedures on the city’s website but none were found,” the report said. “The information sent to the (Butte County Grand Jury) was incomplete, consisting of fragmented pages that appeared to be segments of policy and procedures. Because there was no clear and comprehensive PPM, it was difficult to determine if the city was following proper protocols.”

Based on the report, the Grand Jury found that one person did hold multiple key offices at one point including city administrator, police chief, fire chief and city clerk. The city does not have an updated or completed PPM that the general public can look at. Two emergency declarations were used to override policies. Procedures that are on record were not followed in more than one instance. The city doesn’t fill positions in a timely manner.

The Grand Jury provided some examples of the findings. According to the report, there was a property transfer that didn’t involve offering said property to the Parks Department and a contract for cleaning storm drains was approved without going out to bid.

It’s also noted that the city, in waiting too long to fill certain positions, enabled the mayor to appoint individuals to the positions without a vote.

The jury recommended that each administrative position be filled by only one person with the exception of temporary scenarios. It also recommended that the city adopt a comprehensive PPM by the end of the year, definite emergency situations within the PPM and fill positions in line with the PPM within six months.

The Enterprise-Record attempted to contact LaGrone but did not get a response by the deadline.

Behavioral Services

Pivoting focus to Butte County Behavioral Services, the jury looked at who qualified for services as well as the number of residents who even knew they qualified.

“Only people covered by Medi-Cal and/or Medicare are currently eligible for services,” the report reads. “Services are tailored to individual circumstances; therefore, eligibility requirements are made during the screening process on the case-by-case basis.”

The jury found that there are general misconceptions about Butte County Behavioral Health Services by the community and that the department’s home webpage does not identify service eligibility requirements.

Because of this, the jury recommended that the department put together a public outreach program in order to be consistent with its mission statement, adding that a heading on the homepage should inform the public that not all services are available to all.

Police academy

The Butte County Grand Jury took a deep dive into the Butte College Law Enforcement Academy with the goal of learning how well prepared graduates are as they transfer to police forces.

Members of the jury received a tour of the academy and conducted interviews with its administration as well as graduates who went on to become employed by law enforcement agencies. Additional documents were read as well such as Legislated Mandated Training and hourly requirements/schedules.

A tour was provided of the campus’s new “Scenario Village,” a location made up of five structures, three of which have movable walls and black-out shades.

“Each building has a different orientation and function to provide recruits with a variety of real-life simulations, such as search and use of force scenarios,” the report reads.

When interviewing five recent graduates, the Grand Jury asked about preparation based on the course curriculums.

While the graduates expressed that they were satisfied with the education, some concerns arose. The graduates said there could be some additional training on things like defensive tactics, handcuffing, control holds, communication skills, diffusion, interaction with homeless people, traffic stops, search and seizure legality, community policing and preparation for real-life encounters.

The jury recommended that the academy implement a program that would allow for graduates to provide anonymous input into the program. It also asked that an internal review be conducted to look at the concerns and allot additional time as needed.

Other findings

While investigating the city of Gridley and its providing of electricity to its residents, the Grand Jury found that the city has not posted updated audited financial reports for the 2020/20201 fiscal year. It was also found that a portion of the excess funds are transferred to the city of Gridley General Fund each year.

In working with the Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force, the jury found that overdose deaths from Fentanyl and methamphetamine have slowly gone up but the use of Narcan by first responders has reduced the number of related deaths.

The Grand Jury found that the Butte County website was hard to navigate, especially when looking for information about special districts. However, the Butte County Clerk-Recorder is planning to publish an online roster of dependent and independent special districts by the end of the year.

Chico Enterprise-Record
By JAKE HUTCHISON
June 29, 2022

[Tuolumne County] Grand Jury Critical Of Employee Safety And COVID Response

Sonora, CA — The Tuolumne County Grand Jury has put out a report raising concerns about safety protocols in county government, and also criticizing some information presented by a pair of supervisors in relation to COVID-19.

The county’s government watchdog, the Grand Jury, has put out a new 33-page report entitled “Employee and Public Safety.”

It is broken down into two different sections (employee safety and public safety/Covid).

Related to the first aspect, it received a citizen complaint suggesting there is a lack of leadership from Tuolumne County executives related to compliance with state safety laws, regulations and procedures.

The watchdog group reports, “During the investigation, the Grand Jury found functional deficiencies in the County administration that contributed not just to deficiencies in safety documentation, but other aspects of employee safety and the safety of County residents at large. It was determined that the County does not have a document control system for safety documents, a Safety Management System, or functioning safety committee. The administration lacks a culture that recognizes the importance of safety and that prioritizes, requires, and rewards maintenance of procedures and safety information sharing.”

In the second part of the report, it notes that only 57 percent of eligible Tuolumne County residents chose to get the COVID vaccine, compared to the statewide average of 75 percent. The Grand Jury criticized two supervisors for sharing COVID-19 related information at a board meeting that went against the county public health department’s findings in relation to things like vaccines and masks.

The report notes, “Based on our investigation, the Grand Jury is concerned about the lack of a united front from all county officials at the beginning of the pandemic, and discord among supervisors concerning vaccines, testing, and COVID-19 treatments; and suggests this may have compromised our community’s health. Our County has lost 183 citizens to the current pandemic. The Grand Jury hopes that the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors and County Administration will have the discussion: Could we have done better?”

Now that the report has been completed, the county will put together a formal response.

MyMothereLode.com
By B.J. Hansen
June 29, 2022

Grand jury: Napa County internet access is ‘inconsistent and often nonexistent’

 With federal legislation offering state and local governments $65 billion to fix internet connectivity problems, money is no longer the object.

What is, says the Napa County civil grand jury, is the plan of how to spend it.

The grand jury recently concluded internet coverage is “inconsistent and often nonexistent,” with senior county leaders largely unaware of the problem or how to fix it.

“The Grand Jury could not identify any single county employee who is assigned to work full-time, or even a majority of their time, to move the county broadband agenda forward,” the report read, calling on the county to hire a point person on the issue.

Meanwhile, business operators and residents in the far reaches of the county have learned to improvise.

“We don’t have internet,” said a clerk at the market in Pope Valley, a rural community of 583 people located north of Angwin and east of Calistoga. The clerk declined to provide his name.

Another employee at Pope Valley Winery indicated dropped calls and hiccups with point-of-sale transactions are common.

 “We invested in two-way radios,” said Hieko Gerdes, owner of arborist company Pope Valley Tree.

He said he was dragged into the computer age “kicking and screaming.” The company signed on with internet provider Viasat and relies on a generator when the power goes out.

The grand jury panel also observed that the county demonstrated “insufficient awareness on the part of senior county officials of the critical broadband issues and the choices that they are likely to confront,” the June 10 report read.

The grand jury issued a set of recommendations to improve access, including having county officials adopt an internal plan by Oct. 1 “to better educate themselves” about the issue.

Within two months from that date, the local government should publish a strategic plan to hire contractors to build the needed improvements. It also suggested forming a task force as well as scheduling forums in the community.

For now, the sole official involved in internet service efforts in Napa County is county Supervisor Diane Dillon, who is not seeking reelection and will leave her post in December. She serves on the North Bay North Coast Broadband Consortium with the IT chief, county librarian and one other staffer on a part time basis.

In comparison, Marin and Sonoma counties have designated one “broadband coordinator” for each county who is dedicated to handling those tasks and serving on the consortium.

Economic Development Broadband Analyst Calvin Sandeen said Sonoma County is in the process of securing an entity that may secure grants on behalf of the local government. Phone calls to Marin County Chief Information Officer Liza Massey were unreturned.

Napa County has budgeted for such a position and received the grand jury report at its supervisors’ board meeting on June 21.

“If we do all the recommendations, we’ll be just fine,” said Dillon of the jury findings.

Dillon described the new federal funding as a “firehose” of money coming from the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill.

“We went through years and years of no hope. Now dealing with this issue is in sight,” she said.

The county has two major internet service providers, AT&T and Comcast. But Dillon admits it could be hard to get them to invest in installing resources into areas with few customers. Internet service has become critical, since wildfires have swept through areas like this year after year.

“Few Napa residents can forget how the 2017 and 2020 wildfires caused vast hardship and devastation across the county or how the ongoing COVID pandemic has changed lives. During these events, too many in Napa (County) realized that there were significant internet limitations affecting the ability of county residents to communicate with others,” the grand jury report explained.

The state has also noticed the disparity in communications.

In May, state Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa, introduced a bill that calls for more study. It requires Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Office of Planning and Research to deliver a report to the Legislature by Jan. 1, 2024.

“It is critical that all Californians have access to reliable broadband service,” Dodd told the Business Journal. “But as many in our rural communities know, that’s not the case right now.”

California is due to receive $3.5 billion from the federal government to cover the “middle mile.” If the internet was a tree, the middle mile is the trunk. The tree is weakest at its branches, often called the “last mile” in internet service.

Those projects are due to receive $2 billion for infrastructure projects, according to a June 16 update provided by the California Public Utilities Commission. The CPUC already approved 13 broadband infrastructure projects figured to cost $82 million and benefit 2,430 households. The state utilities commission is expected to get a website dedicated to the broadband effort up and running by next month.

Inadequate internet service spans the North Bay

On Feb. 1, a “digital divide” report presented to the Marin County Board of Supervisors showed, that among 3,000 residents surveyed, almost 600 households are unserved. This is defined as either having no internet service available in their community or connections below the standard 25 Mbps (megabits per second)

Only 11% surveyed noted they were “satisfied” with how fast and reliable their internet service is.

Like other regions, Marin County — which touts a median property value of over $1 million — has poor neighborhoods such as the Canal Neighborhood, pockets of Novato and areas of Marin City. Many residents either don’t have access or can’t afford to connect.

Internet connectivity impacts many aspects of life. According to a Pew Research report from 2019, 69% of Americans said not having home internet connected would mean a “major disadvantage” to find a job, get health care or gain access to other key information. This number climbed from 56% recorded in 2010.

In its 193-page digital divide report compiled in 2019, Sonoma County identified inadequate service areas including the Dry Creek neighborhood. There, 500 homes and 70 businesses were tagged in 2015 as without access.

While most in Santa Rosa, Sonoma and Rohnert Park may have connections, households in the communities of Penngrove, Sonoma Mountain, Bennett Valley, Timber Cove and Cazadero are not faring as well in access or speed.

Sea Ranch invested in its own isolated internet service for its development.

THE NORTH BAY BUSINESS JOURNAL
 SUSAN WOOD
June 22, 2022

[Fresno County] Grand Jury Says Clovis Police Still Not Diverse Enough but Finds No Evidence of Racism

The Clovis Police Department is 75% white, twice as much as the greater Fresno metropolitan area, the Fresno County Civil Grand Jury says in a report released Monday morning.

The grand jury found that Clovis PD “has made significant efforts to ethnically diversify the department to include African American and other sworn officers of color,” but has not yet met expectations.

However, the grand jury found no evidence of systemic racism in hiring.

Clovis Police Responds

In response, the Clovis Police Department said it agrees with the grand jury report summary that says the department has made significant steps to increase diversity but has not met its expectations.

“The results have not met our expectations, because our expectations are high,” the department said in a news release. “But important strides are being made. Over the past two years, 23% of Police Officers hired by the Clovis Police Department are Female, 36% are Hispanic, 9% are Indian, and 5% are Asian.”

African American officers make up only 2% of Clovis Police Department, while the city’s population is 2.9% Black. The grand jury found that the department is “nearly reflective” of the city’s racial and ethnic makeup, but much less diverse than the Fresno metropolitan area.

Clovis police officers presumably would come into contact with people who are not Clovis residents but live in the greater Fresno metropolitan area.

The grand jury review came in response to a citizen complaint about the department’s hiring and staffing practices that resulted in only one African American sworn officer on the force in 2020 — the same as in 1990.

Clovis police recently hired 10 new sworn officers, but none are African American, the report said.

The complainant noted that other police agencies have had greater success in hiring African American officers from the same pool of candidates, even though Clovis PD has a “superior” compensation package.

Hiring Misperception Continues

City of Clovis and police department leaders told the grand jury there is a misperception that Clovis PD does not welcome candidates of color, particularly African Americans. At the same time, most of the leadership said they were unaware of specific objectives to recruit candidates of color and increase diversity.

The grand jury reported that Clovis Police leadership created a Citizens Diversity Committee in 2018 to help generate strategies to increase diversity in the applicant pool.

That same year department leaders created a Diversity Strategic Plan that established a set of goals, including:

• Review equal employment opportunity and gender reports in recruitment and hiring.
• Recruit three officers of different racial and ethnic groups to participate in recruitment and hiring.
• Increase by 25% the number of applicants who are women or are people of color.

In its response, Clovis Police said that the actions it has taken, such as creating a Citizens Diversity Committee, has helped shape the department’s recruiting efforts over the past three years.

“You can find our recruitment team connecting with candidates from ethnically diverse backgrounds monthly at police academies, colleges, and community events, including at the Fresno Juneteenth Festival, where we were the only participating law enforcement agency,” the department said.

Individuals from all backgrounds are welcome to apply for sworn and nonsworn jobs that are posted on the department’s website, JoinClovisPD.com, which is regularly updated, the department said.

GV Wire
Nancy Price
June 27, 2022

[Orange County] Grand jury rips Anaheim for lack of transparency in Angel Stadium sale negotiations

As the Angel Stadium deal died and the mayor of Anaheim resigned amid an FBI investigation into public corruption, the city of Anaheim has worked to isolate itself from the allegations leveled against the now-former mayor.

On Monday, an Orange County grand jury nonetheless blasted the Anaheim City Council — and not just now-disgraced former Mayor Harry Sidhu — for rushing to approve a stadium deal without proper transparency.

“The City Council majority’s inappropriate handling of the stadium property transactions betrayed its constituents,” the grand jury said in its report.

Mike Lyster, the city spokesman, declined to respond to that sentence. In a statement, Lyster said: “We appreciate the grand jury’s review. With recent events and new information brought to light, those issues now are being thoroughly discussed as part of a new, extensive public process for our city.”

Jose Moreno, the most prominent member of the council minority, said the grand jury report reinforced the point that Sidhu had just one of seven votes on the council.

The council majority, Moreno said, rushed to approve actions in support of corporate interests in Anaheim, including but not limited to the stadium deal.

“That’s just the pinnacle of their hubris,” Moreno said.

“At the end of the day, the city council — in all of these issues that the special interests that were working in unison with one another — needed four votes. They kept getting not just four but five votes, on key issues that we now know are a function of the interest of this self-proclaimed cabal. That is what I hope people keep their eye on.”

In an affidavit that was publicly disclosed May 16, FBI special agent Brian Adkins alleged that Sidhu had shared confidential negotiating information with the Angels — at a time when the city was negotiating against the team — in the hope the team would provide a million-dollar contribution to his reelection campaign. Sidhu’s attorney has denied those claims.

Adkins also alleged that Sidhu had “attempted to obstruct” the grand jury inquiry into the stadium deal.

Even as city officials denounced Sidhu’s alleged behavior, claimed no knowledge of it, and killed the suddenly politically toxic deal, they stood behind the sale and the process behind it.

On the day the affidavit against Sidhu was disclosed, City Manager Jim Vanderpool said in a statement: “Throughout this process, Anaheim staff and the City Council have worked in good faith on a proposal that offered benefits for our community.”

Trevor O’Neil, now the mayor pro tem, said the council had approved the deal in the best interest of the city.

“That was the case for myself and a majority of my council colleagues on the stadium plan, which we evaluated and supported on its merits,” O’Neil wrote in an op-ed in the Orange County Register.

After the grand jury released its report, O’Neil sounded a similar note.

“We welcome this report but don’t agree with everything in it,” he said in a statement.

“We evaluated the stadium proposal on its merits and in the best interest of those we serve. What we’ve learned put us in a different place, where the best thing we could do is cancel the deal, which we did swiftly.”

The grand jury said it had initiated its probe before learning of the FBI investigation. The grand jury’s most prominent finding directly contradicted claims that the city and its council majority had worked in the best interest of the city and its residents: “The city of Anaheim demonstrated persistent lack of transparency and rushed decision-making in its handling of the stadium property transactions, exacerbating distrust by the public, state and local government officials, and even some members of its own City Council.”

The grand jury also cited the city for failure to share negotiating documents that “resulted in uninformed decision-making by the City Council,” for limiting “creative affordable housing strategies” as part of the sale, and for “stifling public discussion” because the council majority repeatedly blocked the council minority from even bringing up issues surrounding the deal, let alone debating them.

Under the deal, as approved by the council in 2019, the city would have received $150 million in cash for the 150-acre property from a company controlled by Angels owner Arte Moreno, who is not related to the councilman.

The city would have provided Arte Moreno’s company with $170 million in development credits to include parkland and affordable housing within a project that would have surrounded the stadium with homes, shops, restaurants, offices and hotels.

The grand jury said it “does not see the benefit” of such “financial community benefits” and recommended the council not offer them in any future stadium sale.

The grand jury also recommended the city ensure a minimum 30-day review period for any such land sale. The council majority had refused to support councilman Moreno’s call for a 30-day review period for the Angel Stadium sale.

To ensure a more fully informed public, the grand jury said any future negotiating committee should include more than one council member. The council majority voted for Sidhu to be the council’s lone representative in negotiations with the Angels, and the grand jury said the council minority had “found it very challenging to obtain expected detailed and factual negotiating updates.”

The grand jury excoriated Sidhu for this comment at one council meeting: “The City Council decides what happens in the city and not the voters.”

The grand jury response: “Mayor Sidhu’s comment is not only offensive to his constituents, but it also contradicts the very intent of the Brown Act.”

The Brown Act essentially requires public business to be done in public. A citizens’ group sued the city for allegedly violating the Brown Act during stadium sale negotiations. The city prevailed.

In his affidavit, Adkins wrote that Sidhu’s actions “may have affected the ruling” because a cooperating witness said Sidhu gave him information about a land appraisal so he could share that information with the Angels. Because that information came from a closed session of the city council, Adkins wrote, “Sidhu’s actions may have violated the Brown Act.”

Los Angeles Times
Bill Shaikin
June 27, 2022

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury calls for stronger oversight of affordable housing compliance

The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury has called on the county to bolster its oversight of developers with affordable housing agreements that include public funding and other incentives in exchange for building and maintaining low-rent units.

The civil grand jury’s investigation was triggered by The Press Democrat’s reporting last year on allegations of fraud at an apartment complex owned by companies of prominent Sonoma County developer and political donor Bill Gallaher, according to the report.

The grand jury found on-site visits to such affordable housing units, whether scheduled or conducted as a surprise, are rare and in some of the county’s nine cities do not occur at all. Instead, local regulators have relied primarily on developers to report their own compliance with agreements to limit rent prices and verify tenants’ eligibility for low-income units.

“Insufficient personnel, budgetary limitations, and relatively low incentives” have left the county’s housing authorities able to at best deliver “inconsistent and inadequate” compliance monitoring, according to the 13-page grand jury report. Its findings come amid an ever-worsening housing affordability crisis and on the eve of an influx of over $50 million in state funding for projects to house local homeless people.

In August, a Press Democrat investigation revealed Gallaher’s companies paid $550,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a former housing manager at Vineyard Creek Apartments, a 232-unit complex north of Santa Rosa. Forty-seven apartments at the complex were dedicated to affordable housing in a deal that earned Gallaher a rezoning designation from the county he needed to build the project and $35 million in financing through tax-exempt bonds.

However, in the whistleblower lawsuit, former property manager Mariah Clark accused Vineyard Creek of leasing rent-restricted apartments to family and friends of the Gallahers even though they made too much money to qualify. She also alleged the companies overcharged low-income residents for rent while at the same time gouging government agencies over rental subsidies, among other claims.

The revelations came as Gallaher, founder of Oakmont Senior Living and Poppy Bank, single-handedly bankrolled a failed $1.8 million recall campaign targeting Sonoma County District Attorney Jill Ravitch. More than 76% of voters rejected the recall in September 2021, keeping Ravitch in office.

While the newspaper’s reporting spurred the grand jury report, the civil watchdog panel stayed away from directly investigating those allegations, stating they had been well documented by the press and investigated by county authorities.

The grand jury did not independently review the county’s investigation of allegations at Vineyard Creek. The county’s civil grand juries tend to look into shortcomings in county policies and agencies rather than conduct criminal investigations, according to grand jury foreperson Neal Baker. The grand jury has the authority to request subpoenas through the court, however, and lying to the jurors is a crime.

“The grand jury is empowered to look into criminal matters … but that was not where we were going in this specific report,” said the grand jury foreperson, Neal Baker.

County and state officials have never disclosed to what extent they investigated the fraud allegations at Vineyard Creek.

In one Press Democrat story, two former employees who were named as witnesses in the lawsuit and signed affidavits supporting Clark’s allegations said they were never contacted by government investigators.

The jury focused instead on a broad review of the county and cities’ monitoring of affordable housing projects, largely through interviewing the public officials charged with the task. While it found that monitoring deeply lacking and in need of investment, the jury did not seek to document fraud itself.

“The Grand Jury investigation cannot provide a definitive answer,” to whether there is “significant fraud” in affordable housing, the report read.

“Nor can the housing departments that are charged with monitoring,” it continued, but, “no one the Grand Jury interviewed expressed fears of widespread misbehavior.”

In its report, the jury made a number of recommendations for the county and its nine cities to bolster local oversight of affordable housing. They include:

• Developing “agreed-upon standards and procedures” for compliance monitoring of all affordable housing in the county by Dec. 1.
• Start or resume on-site monitoring by Oct. 1.
• Ensure housing agencies and cities have enough staff to do on-site monitoring and review self-reported compliance data by Jan. 1.
• Start training developers and managers of affordable housing on monitoring procedures by Jan. 1.

Dave Kiff, interim director of the county’s Community Development Commission, its top housing agency, said he was interviewed by the grand jury and described its recommendations as “valuable to the CDC and to cities moving forward.”

Prior to the grand jury report, the agency was already strengthening its affordable housing oversight in light of The Press Democrat’s reporting. In December, county officials started making on-site monitoring visits at all of the roughly 150 affordable housing sites it oversees.

The agency is also working toward hiring additional staff to ensure compliance, Kiff said. When the commission made the changes last year, just one employee was tasked with monitoring over 3,000 units.

Kiff said the commission is reaching out to local cities, some of which are also in the process of hiring more compliance staff, to come up with standard oversight policies and to offer help monitoring affordable units.

“Our goal is to continue to grow our supply of affordable housing units, and it’s critical that we don’t lose those already in service,” he said.

Megan Basinger, director of Housing and Community Services for Santa Rosa, said that while city staff only make on-site visits at around 10% of the roughly 3,300 units at projects with affordable agreements with the city, it doesn’t necessarily mean compliance monitoring is lacking.

A majority of those projects also have agreements with state agencies that help subsidize affordable housing, Basinger said.

“All of those organizations also have monitoring and oversight requirements,” she said.

The Press Democrat’s investigation found that one of those agencies, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority, relied solely on a “certificate of compliance” from Vineyard Creek managers to ensure the site was is in keeping with its affordable housing duties.

The housing authorities of the county’s nine cities and the Sonoma County Community Development Commission are required to respond to the recommendations in the grand jury’s before the end of August.

The Press Democrat
Andrew Graham and Ethan Varian
June 28, 2022

Marin [County] grand jury report blasts water supply planning

The Marin Municipal Water District has failed to adequately prepare for severe drought and should create a four-year water supply, the Marin civil grand jury said in a new report.

Last year, the district faced depleting local reservoir supplies as soon as summer 2022. While rains in late 2021 nearly refilled reservoirs, the drought “exposed serious shortcomings” in the district’s ability to offer a reliable water supply and has shaken public confidence in the district’s leadership, the report states.

“Last year’s drought emergency could have been avoided, if MMWD had taken sufficient measures to provide for a resilient water supply,” the report stated. “With the mounting challenges posed by climate change, the mistakes of the past cannot be repeated. MMWD must establish a roadmap for achieving water supply resilience without delay.”

The grand jury report calls on the district to increase its water supply by 10,000 to 15,000 acre-feet and consider a variety of sources, including new supply, conservation and recycled water expansion. The amount is about a 20% increase in the district’s maximum water supply and a volume equatable to a new Nicasio Reservoir.

The district’s seven reservoirs in the Mount Tamalpais watershed hold about 80,000 acre-feet, which is just more than two years’ worth of supply. Additionally, the grand jury is calling on the district to prioritize new water supply options and how it would pay for them before the end of this year.

Before the rains in late 2021, the district had been preparing to build an emergency $100 million, 8-mile pipeline across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge by summer 2022 to pump in Yuba County water.

In March, the district began a study that will assess the cost and benefits of potential new water supply options to serve the county’s 191,000 central and southern residents, including a pipeline, a regional desalination plant, recycled water expansion, groundwater banking and additional conservation measures.

District General Manager Ben Horenstein said the grand jury’s recommendations align with the current actions the board is taking to find new sources of supply.

“I think it’s a thoughtful report, a good report and again I think it is a direction we’re going consistent with the recommendations,” Horenstein said.

He pushed back on the grand jury’s findings that the district failed to adequately prepare, describing them as “opinions.” He said the district has done a good job in its water supply planning and that it is not alone among western water suppliers in preparing for emergency supply projects during the drought.

“I think the context of the historic nature of the drought wasn’t clear in the report,” Horenstein said. “To me, I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to blame the district or to blame anyone versus supporting the direction that is laid out in the report that is consistent with what we’re currently doing.”

District board President Larry Russell said the report was helpful and that the district board should be able to identify some priority projects by the end of the year.

At the same time, Russell said the report showed some naiveté about the severity of the drought. He pointed to a peer-reviewed study published earlier this year that found the last 22 years in the western U.S. were the driest in 1,200 years.

“If a water district were, in their terms, to drought-proof itself — I don’t even know what those words mean, drought-proof,” Russell said, referring to the grand jury report. “What does it mean technically? How much reserve do you need? How long is the drought going to be?”

Kimery Wiltshire, president of the Sausalito-based Confluence West nonprofit organization that works on water issues in the western U.S., said she agreed with the grand jury findings that the district’s two-year supply of water is “completely inadequate.”

The proposed $100 million emergency pipeline was a “knee-jerk reaction” that frustrated East Bay residents and could have been avoided had the district increased water supplies in preceding decades.

“Marin I think is behind the times,” Wiltshire said. “Most water agencies have a minimum operating standard that they have identified and have in place at least four years of supply.”

Wiltshire also agreed with the grand jury’s criticism of the district using historical precipitation levels to predict future reservoir levels. The grand jury states a 2017 plan adopted by the district that predicted no shortages for projected water demand through 2040 under climate change conditions is erroneous.

“The practice of relying on historical precipitation to predict the future has proven to be flawed in light of climate change,” the report states. “In fact, the possibility of reservoirs running dry is much higher than anticipated.”

The district’s new supply assessment is using models to stress-test the district’s water supply under different scenarios, including more severe six- to seven-year droughts.

Larry Minikes, a former member of the district’s citizen advisory committee and a Marin Conservation League board member, said the grand jury’s recommendations on new supply are valid. However, he said the report failed to capture the historical context behind the district’s supplies, namely the county’s reticence to more housing development.

“Marin for decades has been concerned with population growth,” Minikes said. “Increases in water supplies were seen as the enemy, as bringing in new development. Here we are today and we’re saying, well why didn’t the district do more? The grand jury should have brought into this the role the community played in getting where we are today. The district was not operating in a vacuum.”

The district’s seven reservoirs make up about 75% of its supply, with the remaining 25% coming from Russian River water imports from the Sonoma Water agency. The district has not expanded reservoir supplies since constructing the Soulajule Reservoir and nearly doubling the size of Kent Lake, its largest reservoir, in the 1980s.

Another issue is how the district would pay for these projects. The grand jury report states the district has $139 million in outstanding bond debt and has the capacity to raise another $150 million for water resilience projects so long as it increases rates and fees to keep up with inflation and recent water revenue losses.

Roger Roberts, a former district water rate advisory committee member and former longtime Marin Conservation League board member, said the district is already facing a “serious financial bind” after the pandemic and the drought. In addition to the water supply projects, he said the district has hundreds of millions of dollars in deferred maintenance to repair and replace aging pipes, pumps, storage tanks and other facilities.

Additionally, the district has also had to spend down reserve funds to make up for losses in water sales revenue incurred during the pandemic and drought as well as planning for the emergency pipeline, he said.

Huge reservoir near Bay Area could be expanded to store more water

George Russell: Marin exceeds state water saving goals

“It means the water rates will need to go up substantially,” Roberts said. “They have prided themselves over the years for providing water at one cent a gallon. As a result of that, this financial problem that has been building up on them is now front and center.”

One avenue the grand jury recommended is a new fee similar to the capital maintenance fee approved in 2019. The fixed fee is charged based on the size of the customer’s meter, with larger meters corresponding with larger fees.

The fee is being challenged in court by the Coalition for Sensible Taxpayers, known as COST, which states that the fee is a tax and therefore requires voter approval. COST alleges the fee violates the voter-approved Proposition 218 from 1996, which prohibits government agencies from charging more for a service than it costs to provide it.

“Whatever portion of that which comes from ratepayers must be tied to the amount of their water usage,” COST executive director Mimi Willard wrote in an email. “Charging people based on the size of their meter is unfair, removes any incentive to conserve and we believe is illegal.”

Marin Independent Journal
Will Houston
June 21, 2022