Nevada County Grand Jury urges more transparency for special districts

The 2018-2019 Nevada County Grand Jury last week issued a report on 24 special districts, recommending steps be taken to ensure more transparency and outreach.

The districts surveyed include Nevada Irrigation District, eight fire districts including Nevada County Consolidated, and parks and recreation districts including Oak Tree Park and Western Gateway. The grand jury report noted that their combined annual budgets total more than $140 million, with the districts’ budgets ranging from less than $13,000 a year to nearly $60 million.

A previous grand jury found that many special district boards are staffed by well-intentioned volunteers who lack sufficient training or knowledge of their responsibilities. Last year, the grand jury found special district boards needed better training in ethics and the Brown Act, which governs how board meetings are conducted.

“The jury continued its analysis … and found that there were weaknesses in other areas including transparency and outreach,” this year’s report states. “For example, the jury found that not all districts have websites, and that some websites were not updated with current information.”

Existing law requires special districts to have websites with convenient access to board meeting agendas, the report noted. And a new law means that as of 2020, special district websites must clearly list contact information. The report further noted that one way of meeting public records requirements would be to post any requested documents on the district website.

The new report found that not all special districts had a required conflict of interest policy, and recommended adding that policy to their websites as well as financial and code of conduct information as part of their bylaws.

April 29, 2019

The Union of Grass Valley

By the Union staff

[Marin County] Marin grand jury calls for wildfire tax, new agency

A new report by the Marin County Civil Grand Jury recommends the creation of a joint powers authority to coordinate wildfire preparedness and a quarter-cent sales tax to help fund preparedness efforts.

“Considering Marin’s current state of preparedness, citizens should not assume that first responders will be able to save them from the horrors of a wildfire like those experienced during Butte County’s Camp Fire,” the report states, referring to the fire in November that killed an estimated 85 people, destroying the town of Paradise and ravaging communities around it.

“The deadly threat of fire creates an urgent need for new policies for wildfire preparedness which must be implemented without delay,” says the report, which was released Thursday.

Other key recommendations include: creating a countywide vegetation management plan; hiring at least 30 new vegetation inspectors and at least eight crews focused on fuel reduction; developing a streamlined procedure to enforce vegetation citations; converting key alert systems from opt-in to opt-out; and improving evacuation plans and exit routes.

“The report accurately portrays the fire problem we have in Marin County,” said county fire Chief Jason Weber. “The grand jury highlights the fact that we need to look at this differently under the changing circumstances of climate change. I agree with that sentiment.”

As for creating a joint powers authority, Weber said, “I think the regional approach is the best way to deal with this. As for the specifics, I would not want to jump to that conclusion until we have a chance for the cities, towns and other fire agencies to weigh in.”

Weber also agrees with the grand jury’s conclusion that more revenue is needed to address wildfire preparedness. “As to the exact approach, we need to work with all the partners and get community feedback before the decision is made,” he said.

Marin County Administrator Matthew Hymel said, “We also agree that the best solution is a countywide effort that includes all Marin fire and city agencies. We are already working with our cities and fire agencies to develop a potential countywide program to better protect our residents.”

In March, county supervisors authorized the use of about $2.32 million in Measure A funds to pay for a 14-member Marin County wildland fire crew to assist in removing vegetation from county parks and open space over the next two years.

The report highlights four areas in which it says the county is particularly vulnerable to wildfire.

It focuses first on vegetation management, stating that a combination of aggressive fire suppression and environmental policies have created hazardous fuel loads throughout the county.

The grand jury notes that federal and state governments own thousands of acres of ungroomed open space in the county; that the Marin Municipal Water District owns approximately 21,500 acres of wildland and has been clearing only 30 acres per year; and that the Marin County Open Space District owns about 16,000 acres of wildland, 10 percent of which is managed to reduce fire hazard annually.

Some 60,000 acres fall within the wildland urban interface in Marin, and there are an estimated 69,000 living units valued at $59 billion within this area.

The report, however, states, “County and local governments cannot afford to manage vegetation. Property owners must be responsible for doing much of the work.”

That is where the 30 vegetation management inspectors the report recommends hiring would come in. The grand jury envisions the inspectors issuing citations to private property owners who fail to clear a defensible space around their homes and an expedited legal process to make sure the citations are not ignored.

“Evacuation is also a grave concern,” the report states. “Marin’s topography creates great danger for those who live far from the main evacuation routes. Most connecting roads are narrow and overgrown. Some are constricted by traffic calming obstacles such as concrete medians, and bump outs which impede traffic in emergency evacuations.”

The grand jury acknowledges that Marin’s narrow roads can’t all be rebuilt but it says that “existing, wider roads and those that are major evacuation routes should not be narrowed or impeded” with such traffic calming approaches as concrete medians and speed bumps.

The grand jury faults the Transportation Authority of Marin for not helping to plan for mass evacuations or improve the county’s evacuation routes. It recommends that TAM “convene all stakeholders no later than Dec. 31, 2019 to address congestion on escape routes in an evacuation.”

But Dianne Steinhauser, TAM’s executive director, said, “We are really not authorized to plan, fund or implement evacuation needs. We don’t own or operate any transportation facilities. We have no policing authority.”

“We work closely with the Marin County Office of Emergency Services,” Steinhauser added. “If they have any specific needs, we’re open to assisting them.”

The report also concludes that public transit must be included in emergency planning.

“Marin residents who do not have cars cannot simply drive away from the wildfire,” the report observes, “yet planners have not identified how many non-drivers would need rescue.”

Marin County has overlapping alert systems to notify residents in case they need to evacuate due to wildfire. These include the Emergency Alert System, the national warning system used for catastrophic events; Wireless Emergency Alerts, which reach mobile devices by geographically targeting cell towers in a certain area; Nixle, which sends text messages to smartphones by ZIP codes; and Alert Marin, which broadcasts via land lines and cellphones.

The grand jury found that the biggest flaw of Alert Marin, the system deemed the superior choice by public officials, is that it requires cellphone users to opt-in to the system to be contacted. The Marin Office of Emergency Services estimates that only about 10 percent of Marin residents are registered with Alert Marin. Nixle has the same problem.

Weber said new state legislation will be needed to require cellphone users to opt out of Alert Marin, and the county is working with its representatives in the Legislature to make that happen.

Weber said Alert Marin is the system firefighters will use when they need to get an evacuation order out; he said Nixle is more useful for general messages.

Another vulnerability the grand jury identifies is a Marin public largely ignorant of how to prepare for and respond to wildfires.

“Most people do not know how to make their homes fire resistant or create defensible space by cutting back vegetation,” the report states. “Many have failed to collect emergency supplies or plan for evacuations.”

The grand jury says that FireSafe Marin, a local nonprofit focused on wildfire risk prevention and increasing fire-safety awareness, needs to expand its staff and activities from one current part-time employee.

A countywide public forum on wildfire prevention is planned from 10 a.m. to noon Saturday at the Embassy Suites Hotel in San Rafael.

April 29, 2019

Marin Independent Journal

By Richard Halstead

[San Diego County] If the City Doesn't Revisit San Diego Unified Elections, the State Will

Assemblywoman Shirley Weber has introduced a bill that would change San Diego Unified Board of Education races to subdistrict-only elections. The bill is on a two-year track to allow the City Council time to possibly introduce its own reforms sooner.

Blog note: this article references a 2017 grand jury report.

If the San Diego City Council doesn’t pursue a change to how San Diego Unified board members are elected, Assemblywoman Shirley Weber is prepared to do so at the state level.

Weber introduced a bill in late February that would require candidates for the Board of Education to run solely within their subdistricts – a change long sought by many advocates, and recommended by a San Diego County Grand Jury. Right now, candidates run within a subdistrict in the primary, then run districtwide during the general election.

A spokesman for Weber said Thursday they’ve put the bill on a two-year track in order to give the City Council time to move the reform forward itself.

A lawsuit making its way through the court system is also seeking to force the city to move to district-only elections for the school board. It argues that the current system violates the California Voting Rights Act by diluting minority communities’ votes.

Though the San Diego City Council has no oversight over how schools are run, it does have a role in the school board election process because changes to that process require an amendment to the City Charter. Only the City Council or a citizen’s initiative can put changes to the charter on the ballot for voters to consider.

In 2017, the San Diego County Grand Jury determined that requiring candidates to participate in a citywide election, rather than a district-only election, forces them to rely on support and financial backing from special interest groups.

The current election process, the Grand Jury found, “does not always result in board members who reflect the diversity of the district’s population.”

Weber, herself a former San Diego Unified trustee, is especially aware of those issues.

In 2016, one of her top staffers at the time, LaShae Collins, ran for the San Diego Unified board. In the primary, Collins won overwhelmingly – she beat Sharon Whitehurst-Payne by 20 points. But in the citywide general election, where Whitehurst-Payne benefited from union support, Collins lost by 9 points.

“I think it’s clear that most people want these things solved at the local level. But as the Grand Jury pointed out, it hasn’t been solved. It’s still a problem,” said Joe Kocurek, Weber’s spokesman, of the decision to pursue a change at the state level.

The current process has resulted in many trustees strolling onto the school board unopposed or without major challengers. Trustee Mike McQuary won his first term unopposed. When he ran for re-election in 2018, he had a challenger – Marcia Nordstrom – but when he was asked about her by the Union-Tribune editorial board, he couldn’t even remember her name, which is not exactly the sign of a robust contest. Trustee Richard Barrera, who’s dismissed the move to district-only elections as a Republican ploy, has run unopposed in three straight elections.

Over the last two years, the City Council has explored reforms to the San Diego Unified board election process but always stopped short of moving to district-only elections, even as other school boards and city councils across the county have made similar changes.

After collecting feedback from residents last year, San Diego Unified moved forward some election reforms, including limiting trustees to three four-year terms. Voters approved that change in November 2018. But the district – and the Council – decided not to ask voters whether to move to district-only elections.

City Councilman Chris Cate supports the move to district-only elections but seemed wary that the Council will be the body to do it.

He said deliberations with San Diego Unified about further reforms are basically at a standstill.

“I’m appreciative that Dr. Weber has looked into this and has taken it a step further to make sure this becomes a reality,” Cate said. “I’m in support of term limits and sub-district only elections. Because they fall under the purview of the city, school districts should fall under and have the same purview as city officials – no more and no less.”

Though Weber’s office said the assemblywoman hopes the City Council moves forward on the reform, her bill argues that “the dilution of votes of members of a protected class in elections for the Board of Education of the San Diego Unified School District is a matter of statewide concern.”

April 25, 2019

Voice of San Diego

By Sara Libby

[Kern County] County exploring grand jury's suggestion of impounding unlicensed mobile food vendors' equipment

The Kern County Department of Public Health could soon be strengthening its regulations on mobile food trucks if it follows the recommendations of a Kern County grand jury.

In a recent report, the grand jury suggested that the county department impound equipment of unpermitted food vendors, a practice that would require the establishment of a new county ordinance.

As it stands currently, the county issues cease-and-desist warnings to food vendors that present a low risk of disease transmission, and unpermitted high-risk vendors could have their food confiscated or discarded, according to the grand jury report.

County officials are taking the grand jury’s suggestion seriously, opening up the possibility that new penalties could be levied against the unlicensed vendors.

“Any effort we could make to improve food safety in the community, clearly we’re interested in and want to pursue,” said KCPH Director Matt Constantine. “We’re just trying to explore what we can do.”

A total of 494 mobile food vendors currently have obtained licenses through the Health Department’s Environmental Health Division.

Some licensed food vendors have estimated that there are many unlicensed units throughout the city.

From January 2018 to March 20, 2019, the county issued roughly 127 cease and desist notices to unpermitted food vendors, according to the county. In 69 of those cases, food was voluntarily condemned and destroyed.

“There are a number of individuals that are still unaware of food safety and of obtaining a required permit, so we have some work ahead of us,” Constantine said.

For Mohammed Saphieh, owner of the Pita Paradise food truck, the grand jury’s suggestion would be a welcome change.

“It’s a little drastic maybe, but I think it’s a necessary step to get people to go out and get permitted,” he said. “I think it’s a pretty big problem.”

He said at a recent concert at Fox Theater, he noticed around 20 other food trucks that he did not think were permitted.

“I definitely see that a lot,” he said, referring to unpermitted vendors.

The public can distinguish between permitted and unpermitted vendors by a sticker issued by the county.

Those vendors with licenses receive a sticker that is supposed to be placed in a place viewable by the public.

“As a consumer, you should look at that sticker to make sure that (the vendors) are in compliance, and have been permitted by Environmental Health to serve safe food,” said Michelle Corson, public information officer for the Health Department. “That’s why we put that in place, so that people can check for themselves.”

The county did not have official estimates on how many unlicensed vendors were on city streets.

The grand jury recommended the county “fast-track” the new ordinance that would be required to impound the equipment of unlicensed food vendors, indicating that the jurors believed the issue required quick action.

April 25, 2019

Bakersfield.com – Delano Record

By Sam Morgen 

[Tuolumne County] City, county must still pay $618K in pension obligations for ex-TCEDA employees

Blog note: this article references a 2018 grand jury report and media coverage, the latest of which we just posted on our news blog. This story is not over. 

Nearly $618,000 in unfunded future pension obligations for former employees of the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority will have to be addressed before the agency can be fully shut down.

The amount, referred to as an “unfunded liability,” was revealed in an audit of the TCEDA’s finances that was released Monday morning and presented to the agency’s governing board at a public meeting on Tuesday afternoon.
California law requires the county and City of Sonora to agree on how much each will pay to fund the obligations before the TCEDA can be dissolved, because it was formed as a joint powers authority through an agreement between both governments.

There are three former employees who worked for the TCEDA and are due to receive retirement benefits through the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, or CalPERS — former Chief Executive Officer Larry Cope and former administrative assistants Beth Hartline and Malorie Sperry.

The TCEDA participated in CalPERS, the largest public pension fund in the United States at $362 billion, by including its employees in the county’s contract with the system.

County Auditor-Controller Debi Bautista said that having an unfunded liability for retirement benefits through CalPERS is not uncommon for public agencies in the state, as “almost every single jurisdiction in the state of California that’s a PERS member has an unfunded liability.”

Bautista said the entire system has about 70 percent of what it would need to pay all future obligations, while Tuolumne County as a whole has about 68 percent funded. The county’s total unfunded liability for retirement benefits is about $104 million.

Higher salaries, employees retiring later in life, and living longer after retirement are among the factors Bautista cited that have contributed to the unfunded liabilities in jurisdictions across the state.

In 2012, state lawmakers passed the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act that required new employees in the system to pay for a larger share toward their retirement plans and reduced benefits as a way to rein in costs and pay down the liability.

The law also required any new joint powers authorities that were formed after it went into effect to have their own contract with CalPERS, but those that were formed before that — such as the TCEDA — were exempt

Bautista said numerous counties throughout the state included employees of a joint powers authority in their contracts with the system prior to the law.

David Goldemberg, of Sonora, asked how much of the nearly $618,000 was specifically for Cope’s future retirement benefits, but Bautista said it’s calculated as a whole pool as opposed to individuals.

Goldemberg remarked, and Bautista agreed, that the “lion’s share” of the amount will go to Cope because his salary was much higher than his two assistants. CalPERS benefits are based on a formula that involves an employee’s salary, retirement age, and how many years they worked.

Cope’s annual base salary at the end of his tenure in March was about $163,000, which is roughly four times greater than what his most recent assistant was earning before she quit in March of last year.

County Counsel Sarah Carrillo noted that Cope’s original contract when he was hired by the TCEDA board in 2009 stated that he would receive the same benefits as county employees in the management labor group at the time.

“Essentially that meant that he and the other staff members that were there would be placed into the county’s CalPERS contract and that is something that, to my understanding, both the city and county understood when they created the entity,” she said.

Carrillo stated in an email yesterday that she was not involved with the formation of the TCEDA at the time.

The board decided to delay formally accepting the audits until its next meeting on June 14 after several of the roughly 10 people who attended on Tuesday took issue with the timing of the release of the audits, including TCEDA board members Jim Garaventa and Matt Hawkins, both of whom are elected members of the Sonora City Council.

Hawkins said he couldn’t accept the reports until the public gets more time to review them in the best interest of transparency, something that drew applause from those in attendance.

“I don’t think it’s fair,” he said. “We’ve had the grand jury looking into everything, and I don’t necessarily think it’s transparent.”

A lack of transparency was one of the concerns cited by the Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury in its report on the TCEDA that was released last June and led to the board ordering the audits, which cost about $41,000.

Hawkins and Garaventa both joined the board after the report was released in hopes of being able to help correct the issues.

Garaventa said he received the audits about 30 hours before the meeting, about the same time they were released to local media outlets, and the background information for the meeting less than 26 hours before it began.

“I’ve worked one shift and a good portion of another and slept,” he said. “I haven’t read the audits, and there is no way I’m going to accept something I have not read.”

County Supervisor Karl Rodefer, who serves on the TCEDA board, noted how there was nothing that could be changed about the audit reports even if they delayed the acceptance of them until June.

Bautista gave an overview about the findings from the audits, which she described as a unsurprising because they confirmed much of what had already been publicly reported by the grand jury.

The audit on the agency’s management practices stated that the TCEDA’s travel and business expense policy approved by the board originally in 2009 put the agency at risk for fraud and mismanagement, because it essentially allowed the CEO to overrule every limitation in it.

Bautista, who provided input on the policy when it was being created, said that she personally has learned from the experience with the TCEDA and previously believed it was OK for it to have separate policies from the county’s because they were separate legal entities.

“In hindsight, we should have still made sure that the board understood that the policies and procedures that were adopted way back when were basically not policies and procedures because the director can overrule anything,” she said. “And we will never, ever do that again.”

At the end of the meeting, Carrillo also updated the board on the progress of dissolving the TCEDA and provided a report that stated her office was notified last month when Cope left that he was overpaid by $4,381.26 due to a clerical error made by the Human Resources Department.

The report stated that an inadvertent mistake in the payroll system gave him a 3 percent salary increase last June as a cost-of-living adjustment for the current fiscal year, but his contract was amended in 2017 to exclude such pay increases.

Minutes from a TCEDA board meeting on March 10, 2017, stated that Cope told the board he didn't feel comfortable accepting the cost-of-living adjustments because his contract also included annual raises of 5 percent over the next three years.

According to Carrillo's report, the issue was considered fully resolved. He refunded the overpayment when her office contacted him about it.

April 23, 2019

The Union Democrat

By Alex MacLean

[Tuolumne County] TCEDA Financial And Management Audits Released

Blog note: notice the very different reporting from an article in the Union Democrat just posted on the subject.

Sonora, CA — Audits related to the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority, in response to a critical Grand Jury Report, have now been finalized.

It is somewhat a moot point, as we reported on February 19 that the Tuolumne County Supervisors and City of Sonora both voted to dissolve the TCEDA joint powers agreement. Shortly thereafter the TCEDA Board ended the contract of longtime director Larry Cope.

That said, the city and county can potentially use the information as they chart their own paths related to economic development.

The outside audits were conducted by the Sacramento based firm, Macias, Gini and O’Connell, LLP. They were hired by the TCEDA Board of Directors in September of last year. One audit looked at finances and the other was management.

The audits were critical of things like travel and expense policies for the Executive Director, policies related to time card approval and the director’s use of comp and vacation time.

April 22, 2019

myMotherLode.com

By BJ Hansen

[Tuolumne County] Audit findings: TCEDA lacked proper policies

Blog note: this article references a 2018 grand jury report, which has received the greatest number of media articles on all grand jury 2017-18 reports in the state (as posted in this news blog). Most of these articles (including this one) are by Alex MacLean of The Union Democrat.

The now-defunct Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority operated in a realm of its own without the proper policies in place to provide effective oversight of its chief executive officer, Larry Cope, financial and management audits that were released on Monday confirmed.

Much of what is contained in the long-awaited audits confirm what The Union Democrat reported in February about the TCEDA’s spending for travel and business expenses, as well as some of the findings from a report by the Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury released in June.

Macias, Gini and O’Connell LLP, or MGO, a California-based public accounting firm that has audited many of the largest cities in the state, was paid $41,250 by the TCEDA Governing Board to conduct the audits at the recommendation of the jury.

The TCEDA was formed in late 2008 as a joint powers authority through an agreement between the county and City of Sonora to help foster economic growth and assist businesses.

However, the county Board of Supervisors and Sonora City Council unanimously decided to withdraw from the agreement on Feb. 19 due to a loss of public trust that made it difficult for the TCEDA to continue.

All of the recommendations made in the audits were addressed to the county because it’s in the process of recruiting an interim economic development director who would pick up where the TCEDA left off.

Weaknesses in the TCEDA’s travel and business expense policy left the door open for possible fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement, according to the firm’s final report on the management audit.

The policy allowed Cope to approve his own travel and business-related expenses, provided him with certain exemptions to the rules and listed him as the person who approves such exemptions.

“This allowed the Director to approve his own expenses that exceed the policy limitations,” the audit report stated.

The Union Democrat published a report on Feb. 19 after an extensive review of the TCEDA’s travel and business expense records for 2017 and 2018 that found Cope had spent more than $100,000 on the agency’s credit card in those two years combined.

Cope’s expenses in the years reviewed by the newspaper included multi-day trips to trade shows in places such as Las Vegas and Boston, where some of the hotels Cope stayed at cost more than $400 a night.

The next director should be required to submit travel plans for approval ahead of time, someone else should review and approve his or her expenses, and the county’s auditor-controller should regularly monitor the expenses, according to the recommendations from the audits.

The auditors also recommended requiring the next director to disclose more information for meal expenses, including a description of the purpose, identifying the participants by name, business, or — if confidential — business types, and include itemized receipts.

Only a few of the receipts submitted by Cope in 2017 and 2018 were itemized. His calendar identified county officials whom he met with over a meal in 2017, but not 2018. He also only listed businesses as either “existing clients” or “prospects,” but did not identify them by name or type of business.

According to the auditors, the TCEDA’s policy also did not comply with Internal Revenue Service rules requiring employees to provide a business-related reason for expenses and pay the agency back “in a timely manner” for any expenses or reimbursements that were not covered by its policy.

The auditors also suggested that the board “may consider budgeting and accounting for local meal expenses separately from travel expenses and monitor the reasonableness” of the director’s local meal expenses on a monthly basis.

The TCEDA board approved the original version of the policy on July 10, 2009, after Cope presented them with a draft. Minutes from the meeting stated he met with County Auditor-Controller Debi Bautista for direction on the policy.

Some minor updates to the policy were approved by the board in 2015.

Bautista said on Monday she probably should have sat down with the TCEDA board and explained how they passed a policy that allows the director to overrule it at anytime, but she didn’t because she was told they were completely separate entities and needed separate policies.

“I will never do that again,” she said. “I don’t care if they pass their own policies, I would scrutinize them at the same level as any other county department. We’ve learned a lot from this.”

County Counsel Sarah Carillo said she was not involved with the formation of the TCEDA, nor was anyone currently in her office, but they can only provide legal advice to their clients and can’t make the decision on what to do for them.

The management audit stated that requests for information concerning the TCEDA went through the County Counsel’s Office and were decided on a case-by-case basis.

Outside attorneys were hired to defend the TCEDA against a lawsuit filed by county resident Ken Perkins last year for information concerning the businesses that had benefited from the agency’s assistance, which ultimately resulted in the release of redacted information and $7,000 awarded to Perkins for his attorney fees.

Auditors acknowledged there might be legal reasons to withhold information concerning some clients of the TCEDA, but stated “the tracking and reporting of business contacts are important for both performance metric reporting and transparency.”

According to the audit, the TCEDA’s tracking of performance metrics fell short of those reported by similar economic development agencies in Madera and Siskiyou counties.

The other agencies collected metrics such as the number of site requests made by business, industrial vacancy rate, amount of funds invested into the economy, and return on investment, while the TCEDA did not.

Additionally, the audit found that Cope should not have claimed “comp time” while in England for a month in 2017 because he was a salaried employee who does not receive comp time. The audit noted that he agreed to return the hours to the county from his accrued vacation time when his contract was terminated last month.

Cope received a lump-sum payment of more than $120,000 as part of his separation agreement with the TCEDA.

County Supervisor John Gray, who serves as TCEDA chairman, said he could not weigh an opinion on the audits Monday because he was out of town most of the day and had yet to read through them.

Sonora Mayor Jim Garaventa, who serves on the TCEDA board, also said he hadn’t gotten a chance to read the audits Monday afternoon because he received them that morning while he was at work.

Bautista is scheduled to give a presentation about the audits to the TCEDA board at a special meeting Tuesday afternoon.

The board is also scheduled to consider a number of items related to the process of dissolving the TCEDA and its nonprofit arm, the Economic Prosperity Council of Tuolumne County, including the recent resignation of longtime TCEDA board member Barry Hillman.

Hillman, who joined the board in 2012, took aim at critics in his resignation letter dated March 19.

“I deeply regret the demise of the TCEDA as I continue to believe it has provided an excellent pathway for true economic development in Tuolumne County now lost due to shortsighted influence and misrepresentations of a minority of individuals who have never taken time to understand the importance and value of this organization,” he wrote.

Hillman said he had not read the audits when contacted via telephone Monday afternoon and declined to answer any other questions before abruptly ending the call.

April 22, 2019

The Union Democrat

By Alex MacLean

[San Benito County] Community Opinion: Grand Jury

Kenneth Kovanda shares his thoughts about serving on the San Benito County Civil Grand Jury.

I served on the Grand Jury for two years and back then our budget was $19,000, but we had to pay rent to use a room at the sheriff's office that came out of our budget. We had five or so items that we had to investigate each year. It took two or more people for each investigation. We received a letter from a county employee concerning a situation that he felt needed to be looked at. We interviewed eight people and spent weeks just on this one situation. We used to receive $15 a meeting and received mileage money to the meeting. 

I disagree with Margie Barrios that every agency is expected to live within their budget. The county allows a Public Defender a budget for the year, but depending on his workload they almost always have to increase the budget to compensate him for his work, so what she said is not true. The Grand Jury is very similar in that they don't have any advanced notice how much work will be required for the year, so they should get an increase to compensate them for their extra work just like the Public Defender.

We had to investigate the Board of Supervisors on a situation and after that investigation, the budget was reduced the following year by taking away the mileage for our meetings. I would think that the budget would increase with the cost of living just like the salaries of county employees increase. I don't think any county employee is making the same today as they did in 2006. 

The people on the Grand Jury take their job very seriously and deserve the respect of the community and the Board of Supervisors.

April 22, 2019

BenitoLink

By Kenneth Kovanda

[San Mateo County] Alarming data prompts East Palo Alto to consider smoking ban in apartments, condos

City leaders seek to safeguard against excessive penalties, displacement if new law takes effect

A San Mateo County civil grand jury report that recommends cities take a more proactive stance in banning secondhand smoke in apartments, condominiums and other multiunit housing such as townhomes and fourplexes, is being taken seriously by East Palo Alto.

The City Council on April 2 voted 4-0, with Councilman Ruben Abrica absent, to direct staff to explore creating a smoking ban in multiunit dwellings. In a discussion before the vote, council members cautioned staff against drafting an ordinance that would further cause evictions or unfairly punish smokers.

The city's exploration of the subject is in response to the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report "Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing: No Ifs, Ands, or Butts," which specifically recommended that East Palo Alto and other cities hold public hearings to evaluate restricting smoking in multiunit housing.

East Palo Alto already has an ordinance to prevent smoking in all buildings and other facilities owned, leased or occupied by the city, but it doesn't have any restrictions on smoking in multiunit dwellings except where common areas are open to the public, according to a city staff report. The city has 3,395 multiunit residences, according to the civil grand jury report.

Secondhand smoke from tobacco products contains more than 7,000 chemicals, including more than 50 carcinogens. It has killed an estimated 2.5 million nonsmokers in the U.S. since 1967, according to the U.S. Public Health Service's surgeon general. E-cigarettes, while not producing smoke, do make vapor that also contains many of these chemicals, and smoke from cannabis is also considered toxic and can impair blood-vessel function, according to the California Department of Public Health.

Passive smoke, another name for secondhand exposure, infiltrates apartments through vents, electrical outlets, floor boards and other gaps, making its control particularly important for children and pregnant women. It also remains deposited on furniture, rugs, clothing and drapery where hazardous chemicals remain long after a smoker has left an apartment.

Exposure to secondhand smoke is linked to cancers, asthma and other respiratory diseases.

Staff noted that East Palo Alto residents have been particularly impacted by asthma, a condition that can be caused or aggravated by smoke. City environmental management analyst Michelle Daher told the Rents Stabilization Board in March that her daughter was hospitalized due to her asthma after being exposed to secondhand smoke in an apartment. Others also spoke of their own illnesses and their suspicions that secondhand smoke may have contributed to the deaths of their loved ones.

Daher compiled county data for the years 2013-2015 that showed East Palo Alto residents made as many as 47.4 visits to hospital emergency rooms due to asthma compared to 32.7 visits for the county as a whole, per 10,000 adults ages 18 years and older. That number is 144.95% greater than the county rates. The percentage of East Palo Alto adults who were hospitalized due to asthma-related illness was 256% greater than that for the county overall. Among adults who had pediatric asthma, East Palo Alto adults had a hospitalization rate 364.29% greater than the county value per 10,000 adults.

Francesca Lomotan, San Mateo County Health Department's tobacco prevention program director, told the city council that the American Lung Association scorecard for cities has given East Palo Alto an "F" grade for smoke-free housing; a "C" for smoke-free outdoor air and a "B" for reducing the sale of tobacco products.

Her office is conducting a survey of East Palo Alto residents at Woodland Park Apartments to gauge their experiences with secondhand smoke and how they feel about a potential nonsmoking ordinance. Initial responses from 73 people found that 89% said the smell of smoke bothers them and 80% said they sometimes or often experience secondhand smoke. Asked whether they would support a smoking ban in multiunit apartments, 77% said "yes," 8% said "no" and 15% said they "don't know."

If East Palo Alto enacts an ordinance, it would join 10 jurisdictions within San Mateo County with smoking bans in multiunit housing, including Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Mateo, South San Francisco and unincorporated San Mateo County. Belmont passed the nation's first ordinance in 2007, and other cities, including San Carlos, are currently examining similar laws, staff noted.

The ordinances prohibit tobacco and recreational marijuana smoke, with most prohibiting medical marijuana smoke. All prohibit e-cigarettes or "vaping," and all include condominiums except for Daly City. Most require a nonsmoking notice in leases.

The council had no objections to exploring a potential law with a caveat: Any ordinance should contain language that won't increase displacement of residents.

Councilman Carlos Romero said he is "quite concerned" that an ordinance would be used by landlords as an excuse to evict renters in rent-controlled units, which would then allow the rent to increase to market value.

City Attorney Rafael Alvarado also said that part of the criticism of these types of ordinances is they create additional opportunities for displacement of tenants.

But rent stabilization program administrator Victor Ramirez said staff would work on ways that keep landlords from unjustly evicting tenants and that it would not have to modify the 2010 rent stabilization ordinance, which doesn't include smoking as grounds for a just cause eviction.

The city could look to other ordinances for guidance on preventing eviction and intimidation and perhaps strengthen those provisions. According to the grand jury report, more than half of the existing nonsmoking ordinances in other cities within the county prohibit retaliation. In unincorporated San Mateo County, for example, residents seeking to comply with the ordinance "shall not be intimidated or harassed for doing so, and no person shall intentionally or recklessly expose another person to smoke in response to that person's effort to achieve compliance." It is also unlawful for a landlord or another person to take any retaliatory action against a resident for reporting a multiunit housing violation. By inference, that could include smoking violations. Staff would also look at multiunit nonsmoking ordinances in cities with rent-stabilization laws, such as Santa Monica.

Council members also instructed staff to look into ways to enforce the ordinance. Most of the cities with housing smoking ordinances give first-time violators an initial warning and repeat violators fines ranging from $100 to $1,000, according to the grand jury report.

In neighboring Palo Alto, the city enacted a no-smoking ordinance in multiunit dwellings in January 2018 that restricts smoking cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, hookahs, pipes, electronic smoking devices "and any plant product intended for human inhalation including medical or recreational marijuana" inside the residences and in many common areas inside and outside of buildings. Landords must post signage and include notices of the ordinance in lease and rental agreements.

The city can enforce the ordinance by applying a nuisance law or imposing a fine that ranges from $250 for a first violation, $300 for a subsequent violation and up to $500 for each additional violation within a year.

Landlords in Palo Alto can also consider smoking a violation of the lease and "may be enforced accordingly," a city fact sheet noted.

But Romero was against overly punitive measures.

"I'm opposed to any fines. We are trying to move away from penalizing people of color or working-class folks," he said.

The city could work with landlords or the county's tobacco prevention program to bring tenants into compliance through education. Private citizens could also bring legal actions against neighbors who refuse to comply with the law, although Romero thought that might be too difficult for most tenants to deal with. One resident suggested the city could give out vouchers for nicotine patches or referrals to programs to help smokers kick their habits.

The council did not specify any date for staff to return with a framework for the ordinance.

April 18, 2019

Palo Alto Weekly

By Sue Dremann 

[Kern County] County exploring grand jury's suggestion of impounding unlicensed mobile food vendors' equipment

The Kern County Department of Public Health could soon be strengthening its regulations on mobile food trucks if it follows the recommendations of a Kern County grand jury.

In a recent report, the grand jury suggested that the county department impound equipment of unpermitted food vendors, a practice that would require the establishment of a new county ordinance.

As it stands currently, the county issues cease-and-desist warnings to food vendors that present a low risk of disease transmission, and unpermitted high-risk vendors could have their food confiscated or discarded, according to the grand jury report.

County officials are taking the grand jury’s suggestion seriously, opening up the possibility that new penalties could be levied against the unlicensed vendors.

“Any effort we could make to improve food safety in the community, clearly we’re interested in and want to pursue,” said KCPH Director Matt Constantine. “We’re just trying to explore what we can do.”

A total of 494 mobile food vendors currently have obtained licenses through the Health Department’s Environmental Health Division.

Some licensed food vendors have estimated that there are many unlicensed units throughout the city.

From January 2018 to March 20, 2019, the county issued roughly 127 cease and desist notices to unpermitted food vendors, according to the county. In 69 of those cases, food was voluntarily condemned and destroyed.

“There are a number of individuals that are still unaware of food safety and of obtaining a required permit, so we have some work ahead of us,” Constantine said.

For Mohammed Saphieh, owner of the Pita Paradise food truck, the grand jury’s suggestion would be a welcome change.

“It’s a little drastic maybe, but I think it’s a necessary step to get people to go out and get permitted,” he said. “I think it’s a pretty big problem.”

He said at a recent concert at Fox Theater, he noticed around 20 other food trucks that he did not think were permitted.

“I definitely see that a lot,” he said, referring to unpermitted vendors.

The public can distinguish between permitted and unpermitted vendors by a sticker issued by the county.

Those vendors with licenses receive a sticker that is supposed to be placed in a place viewable by the public.

“As a consumer, you should look at that sticker to make sure that (the vendors) are in compliance, and have been permitted by Environmental Health to serve safe food,” said Michelle Corson, public information officer for the Health Department. “That’s why we put that in place, so that people can check for themselves.”

The county did not have official estimates on how many unlicensed vendors were on city streets.

The grand jury recommended the county “fast-track” the new ordinance that would be required to impound the equipment of unlicensed food vendors, indicating that the jurors believed the issue required quick action.

April 16, 2019

Bakersfield.com

By Sam Morgen