Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL

(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE MUNICIPAL FINANCING AGENCY OF LAKEPORT and THE SUCCESOR
AGENCY TO THE FORMER LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453
Any person may speak for three (3) minutes on any agenda item; however, total public input per item is not to exceed 15 minutes, extended at the discretion of the
City Council. This rule does not apply to public hearings. Non-timed items may be taken up at any unspecified time.
CLOSED SESSION: 5:15 p.m.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov. Code § 54957.6)
Name of City Negotiator to Attend Closed Session: Margaret Silveira
Employee Organizations:
a. Unrepresented Management
b. City Manager
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: 6:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA/ URGENCY ITEMS: Move to accept agenda as posted, or move to add or delete items.
To add item, Council is required to make a majority decision that an urgency
exists (as defined in the Brown Act) and a 2/3rds determination that the need to
take action arose subsequent to the Agenda being posted.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA: The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by
the Council at one time without any discussion. Any Council Member may request that any item be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion under the regular Agenda. Removed items will be considered following the
Consent Calendar portion of this agenda.
A. Ordinances: Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this
meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934.
B. Minutes: Approve minutes of the City Council regular meeting of August 21, 2018.
C. Warrants: Approve the warrant register of August 31, 2018.
D. Grand Jury Report: Review and file FY 2017-18 Civil Grand Jury Report Response
E. Abandoned Vehicle Abatement: Adopt the proposed amendment to the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service
Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to add a fifth voting member
selected at large by the Service Authority.
V. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:
A. Citizen Input: Any person may speak for 3 minutes about any subject within the authority of the City Council, provided that the
subject is not already on tonight’s agenda. Persons wishing to address the City Council are required to complete a
Citizen’s Input form and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting being called to order. While not required,
please state your name and address for the record. NOTE: Per Government Code §54954.3(a), the City Council
cannot take action or express a consensus of approval or disapproval on any public comments regarding matters
which do not appear on the printed agenda.
B. New Employees: Introduce new employees Kris Perkins and Jonathan Ohlen
C. Proclamation: Present a proclamation in honor of Gerald “Gerry” Mills, longtime member of
the Lakeport Fire Protection District Board of Directors, on his retirement of the
Board.
D. Proclamation: Present a proclamation of gratitude to the Lakeport Fire Protection District for
their service during the recent wildfires.
E. Presentation: Sutter Lakeside Hospital Dan Peterson, Chief Administrative Officer of Sutter Lakeside will give an update
on the hospital and its response to the wildfires.
VI. COUNCIL BUSINESS:
A. Administrative Services Director
City Council Agenda of September 4, 2018 Page 2
1. ADA Grievance Policy: Adopt the proposed resolution adopting a Grievance Procedure under the
American Disabilities Act, Notice under the Act, and designate the Administrative
Services Director as the ADA Coordinator.
B. Public Works Director
1. Authorization to Purchase a Authorize the City Manager to sign the associated purchase order and purchase
Skip Loader: agreement for a John Deere 210L Skip Loader.
C. City Manager
1. Prop 6: Adopt a resolution supporting opposition to Proposition 6, “Repeal of the Road
Repair and Accountability Act”, which will appear on the November 6, 2018
Ballot
2. League of California Cities Direct the City of Lakeport’s voting delegate to the League of California Cities
Resolution Packet: Annual Conference to support the two (2) Resolutions provided in the Annual
Conference Resolutions Packet.
VII. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Miscellaneous Reports, if any:
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 225
Park Street, Lakeport, California, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Lakeport’s website, www.cityoflakeport.com, subject to
staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
The City of Lakeport, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend and/or
participate in the City meeting due to disability, to please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (707) 263-5615, 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure reasonable
accommodations are provided.
_______________________________________
Hilary Britton, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL
(ALSO MEETS AS THE CITY OF LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT, THE LAKEPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THE
MUNICIPAL FINANCING AGENCY OF LAKEPORT and THE SUCCESOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LAKEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY)
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
City Council Chambers, 225 Park Street, Lakeport, California 95453
Any person may speak for three (3) minutes on any agenda item; however, total public input per item is not to exceed 15 minutes, extended at the discretion of the
City Council. This rule does not apply to public hearings. Non-timed items may be taken up at any unspecified time.
CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Turner called the meeting to order at 5:17 p.m. Mayor Turner adjourned
to Closed Session at 5:17 p.m. to consider the following:
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov. Code §

54956.8)
910 Bevins Street, APN 025-472-03
Agency Negotiator: City Manager Silveira
Negotiating Party: Robert Schall
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
2.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov. Code § 54957.6)
Name of City Negotiator to Attend Closed Session: Margaret Silveira
Employee Organizations:
a. Unrepresented Management
b. City Manager
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Turner advised there was no reportable action out of Closed Session
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL: Mayor Turner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. with Council Member
Barnes, Council Member Mattina, Council Member Spurr, Council Member
Parlet, and Mayor Turner present.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Kurt Combs.
MOMENT OF SILENCE: Observe a moment of silence for Draper City Fire Department Battalion Chief
Matthew Burchett, who lost his life while on the fire lines of the Mendocino
Complex.
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA/ URGENCY ITEMS: There were no Urgency Items.
City Clerk Buendia requested that Agenda Item VI.D. Bid Award be pulled from
the agenda due to issues that arose after the posting of the Agenda.
A motion was made by Council Member Mattina, seconded by Council Member
Parlet, and unanimously carried by voice vote to accept the agenda as amended.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA: The following Consent Agenda items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by
the Council at one time without any discussion. Any Council Member may request that any item be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion under the regular Agenda. Removed items will be considered following the
Consent Calendar portion of this agenda.
A. Ordinances: Waive reading except by title, of any ordinances under consideration at this
meeting for either introduction or passage per Government Code Section 36934.
B. Minutes: Approve minutes of the City Council regular meeting of July 17, 2018, the
emergency meeting of July 30, 2018, and the special meeting of August 13, 2018.
C. Warrants: Approve the warrant register of August 16, 2018.
D. Application 2018-023: Approve Application 2018-023, with staff recommendations, for the 2018
Halloween Parade, to be held October 31, 2018.
E. Application 2018-025: Approve Application 2018-025, with staff recommendations, for the 2018
Sponsoring Survivorship Walk/Run, to be held October 6, 2018.
City Council Minutes of August 21, 2018 Page 2
F. Application 2019-001: Approve Application 2019-001, with staff recommendations, for the 2019 Home
Wine and Beer Makers Festival, to be held June 15, 2019.
G. Claim: Reject Claim No. 18-19-001, filed by Joseph Young, as recommended by REMIF.
H. Memorandum of Understanding for the Adopt a resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Lakeport Police Officers Association: Lakeport Police Officers’ Association for the period of July 1, 2018 through June
30, 2022 and approve the necessary budget adjustment for the year ended June
30, 2019.
I. Master Salary Schedule: Approve a Resolution rescinding Resolution 2672 (2018) and revising the Master
Pay Schedule in conformance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section
570.5.
J. Lake County Fair Parking: 1. Approve the designated temporary disabled parking on C and D Streets,
between South Forbes Street and the respective fairgrounds entrance
gates from 4:00 p.m. August 30th to Midnight on Sunday, September
2nd, 2018; and
2. Approve the lease for Fair parking at 902 Bevins Court with the 49th
District Agricultural Association and authorize the City Manager to
execute the lease.
K. Renew Emergency Resolution: Confirm the continuing existence of a local emergency in the City of Lakeport.
L. National Night Out: Approve the participation of the City of Lakeport in the rescheduled National
Night Out event, with street closures and the Gazebo reserved for the event.
Vote on Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council Member
Spurr, and unanimously carried by voice vote to approve the Consent Agenda,
Items A-L.
V. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/REQUESTS:
A. Citizen Input: There was no input from the public.
B. Staff Appreciation: The City Council thanked the City of Lakeport staff for their efforts during the
Mendocino Complex fire incident.
C. Introduction of Reserve Officer Chief Rasmussen introduced new Reserve Officer, Gerardo Gonzalez.
D. Presentation: Fireworks Donation The Lakeport Main Street Association presented a donation in the amount of
$1,000 for the Annual Fireworks Show in Library Park.
E. Presentation: Lakeport Economic Denise Combs and Bill Eaton, members of LEDAC, presented an update on their
Development Advisory Committee Business Site Visits, as well as the results of their business survey.
(LEDAC)
VI. COUNCIL BUSINESS:
A. City Clerk
1. 2018 Municipal Election: The staff report was presented by City Clerk Buendia.
A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council Member

Barnes, and unanimously carried by voice vote to adopt a Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Lakeport Providing for the Appointments to the Offices of
Councilmember of the City those that were nominated to be elected on Tuesday,
November 6, 2018 at the General Municipal Election.
B. Administrative Services Director
1. Liability Claims Administration: The staff report was presented by Administrative Services Director Buendia.
A motion was made by Council Member Barnes, seconded by Council Member

Spurr, and unanimously carried by voice vote to approve a resolution approving
the delegation of claims administration and authorizing REMIF and the third
City Council Minutes of August 21, 2018 Page 3
party administrator on behalf of REMIF to accept or reject claims filed against the
City of Lakeport.
C. Police Chief
1. Police Dog Foundation: The staff report was presented by Chief Rasmussen. Local business owner David
Brown was available to answer questions from the Council regarding the
proposed Foundation. He advised that he needs a Board of Directors appointed
in order to proceed with the nonprofit filing.
Council gave a general consensus that they supported the idea of the Foundation
and the Mayor may appoint a board member at the appropriate time.
D. Public Works Director

1. Bid Award: This item was pulled.
VII. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Miscellaneous Reports, if any: City Manager Silveira reported that Senator McGuire will be buying donuts for
the kids at Terrace Middle School tomorrow morning.
She also congratulated Mayor Turner for being voted to be the Redwood Empire
Division representative to the State Board of the League of California Cities.
Community Development Director Ingram had no report.
City Attorney Ruderman had no report.
Police Chief Rasmussen reported that there will be heavy traffic enforcement for
the first day of school.
Administrative Services Director/City Clerk Buendia had no report.
Council Member Spurr had no report.
Council Member Parlet had no report.
Council Member Mattina thanked staff and management staff for the work done
during the fires and she felt confident evacuating with her family knowing that
staff had a plan. She expressed that it is an honor to be on the Council and
thanked those who signed nomination forms. She also thanked the community
for cooperation during the fires.
Council Member Barnes reported that he attended the Redwood Empire Division
meeting in Eureka on Friday and enjoyed the arts presence at the City of Eureka.
Mayor Turner reported thanked the Council for appointing her to another term.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Turner adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m.
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 225
Park Street, Lakeport, California, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Lakeport’s website, www.cityoflakeport.com, subject to
staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
The City of Lakeport, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend and/or
participate in the City meeting due to disability, to please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (707) 263-5615, 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure reasonable
accommodations are provided.
_______________________________________
Mireya Turner, Mayor
Attest:
_________________________________________
Kelly Buendia, City Clerk
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Over 125 years of community
pride, progress and service
8/31/2018
I hereby certify that the attached list of warrants has been audited,
extensions are proper, purchase orders have been issued, and department
heads have been given the opportunity to review and sign claim forms.
______________________________
Nicholas Walker
Finance Director
225 PARK STREET • LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA 95453 • TELEPHONE (707) 263-5615 • FAX (707) 263-8584
Bank Transaction Report
Lakeport Transaction Detail
Issued Date Range: 08/17/2018 - 08/30/2018
Cleared Date Range: -
Issued Cleared
Date Date Number Description Module Status Type Amount
Bank Account: 15-0352000798 - POOLED CASH BANK
08/20/2018 53748 AFLAC Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -732.46
08/20/2018 53749 CA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -693.67
08/20/2018 53750 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -150.00
08/20/2018 53751 LAKEPORT EMPLOYEE'S ASSOC Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -285.00
08/20/2018 53752 LEGALSHIELD Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -188.35
08/20/2018 53753 LPOA Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -405.00
08/20/2018 53754 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,015.00
08/20/2018 53755 VALIC - C/O JP MORGAN CHASE Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -2,689.90
08/20/2018 53818 CITY OF SEBASTOPOL Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,602.24
08/20/2018 53819 CITY OF ST HELENA Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -3,541.89
08/20/2018 53820 CITY OF UKIAH Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -29,207.56
08/20/2018 53821 RODEWAY INN & SUITES SKYLARK SHORES RESORT Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -2,673.00
08/20/2018 DFT0000977 CALPERS Accounts Payable Outstanding Bank Draft -2,079.21
08/20/2018 DFT0000985 CALPERS Accounts Payable Outstanding Bank Draft -45.00
08/20/2018 DFT0000986 CALPERS Accounts Payable Outstanding Bank Draft -7.64
08/20/2018 DFT0000987 IRS Accounts Payable Outstanding Bank Draft -3,691.64
08/20/2018 DFT0000988 CA EMP DEVELOPMENT DEPT Accounts Payable Outstanding Bank Draft -4,371.05
08/20/2018 DFT0000989 CA EMP DEVELOPMENT DEPT Accounts Payable Outstanding Bank Draft -1,260.94
08/20/2018 DFT0000990 IRS Accounts Payable Outstanding Bank Draft -12,122.78
08/20/2018 DFT0000991 IRS Accounts Payable Outstanding Bank Draft -375.72
08/22/2018 53822 LAKEPORT DISPOSAL, INC. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -9,225.87
08/30/2018 53824 ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,209.00
08/30/2018 53825 AMERICAN RESTORATION Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -17,135.05
08/30/2018 53826 AmWINS GROUP BENEFITS, INC. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -17,955.00
08/30/2018 53827 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -44.36
08/30/2018 53828 BB&T GOVERNMENTAL FINANCE Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -191,900.01
08/30/2018 53829 BOB NISHIYAMA INVESTIGATIONS Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -335.60
08/30/2018 53830 BONNE SHARP Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -242.00
08/30/2018 53831 CALPERS Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,400.00
8/31/2018 1:41:10 PM Page 1 of 3

Bank Transaction Report Issued Date Range: -
Issued Cleared
Date Date Number Description Module Status Type Amount
08/30/2018 53832 CD & POWER Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -11,167.18
08/30/2018 53833 COUNTY OF LAKE-ANIMAL CONTROL Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -424.25
08/30/2018 53834 COUNTY OF LAKE-AUDITOR Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,371.00
08/30/2018 53835 DAVIS TIRE & AUTO REPAIR Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -25.00
08/30/2018 53836 DEBRA ENGLAND Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -750.00
08/30/2018 53837 DEPT OF JUSTICE Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -432.00
08/30/2018 53838 DUSTY D WORK WEAR, LLC Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -2,339.64
08/30/2018 53839 FED EX Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -142.63
08/30/2018 53840 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -466.54
08/30/2018 53841 HORN'S PEST CONTROL Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -125.00
08/30/2018 53842 IMAGE SALES, INC. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -33.94
08/30/2018 53843 JAMES DAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -3,257.00
08/30/2018 53844 JONAS HEATING AND COOLING Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -129.00
08/30/2018 53845 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES- REDWOOD EMPIRE DIVISION Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -465.00
08/30/2018 53846 MENDO MILL & LUMBER CO. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -618.26
08/30/2018 53847 MYERS STEVENS & TOOHEY & CO. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -326.70
08/30/2018 53848 NAPA AUTO - LAKE PARTS Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -385.62
08/30/2018 53849 NFP NATIONAL ACCOUNT SERVICES Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -930.48
08/30/2018 53850 PACE SUPPLY #03391-00 Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -6,481.62
08/30/2018 53851 PACIFIC REDWOOD MEDICAL GROUP-JOB CARE Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -706.00
08/30/2018 53852 PEOPLE SERVICES, INC. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -180.00
08/30/2018 53853 PERFORMANCE MECHANICAL Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -140.00
08/30/2018 53854 PLAZA PAINT & SUPPLIES Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -4.58
08/30/2018 53855 POLESTAR COMPUTERS Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,602.32
08/30/2018 53856 PRECISION WIRELESS SERVICE Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -766.69
08/30/2018 53857 RELIANCE ENTERPRISES Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,167.03
08/30/2018 53858 REMIF Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -50,436.00
08/30/2018 53859 SERVPRO OF MENDOCINO COUNTY Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -3,693.47
08/30/2018 53860 SHRED-IT USA LLC Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -59.93
08/30/2018 53861 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -676.42
08/30/2018 53862 THE WORKS INC/MLS - LSQ FUNDING GROUP Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -7,365.36
08/30/2018 53863 TOM CARLTON Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -140.00
08/30/2018 53864 U.S. BANK Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -11,682.26
08/30/2018 53865 USA BLUE BOOK Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -134.25
08/30/2018 53866 WESTSIDE COMMUNITY PARK Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -500.00
08/30/2018 53867 WILDA SHOCK Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -1,020.16
08/30/2018 53868 LAKEPORT DISPOSAL, INC. Accounts Payable Outstanding Check -18,938.07
Bank Account 15-0352000798 Total: (73) -454,559.14
Report Total: (73) -454,559.14
8/31/2018 1:41:10 PM Page 2 of 3

Bank Transaction Report Issued Date Range: -
Summary
Bank Account Count Amount
15-0352000798 POOLED CASH BANK 73 -454,559.14
Report Total: 73 -454,559.14
Cash Account Count Amount

998 998-0000-101000 POOLED CASH - WEST AMERICA 73 -454,559.14
Report Total: 73 -454,559.14
Transaction Type Count Amount

Bank Draft 15 -42,844.78
Check 58 -411,714.36
Report Total: 73 -454,559.14
8/31/2018 1:41:10 PM Page 3 of 3

CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District
Lakeport Redevelopment Successor Agency
Lakeport Industrial Development Agency
Municipal Financing Agency of Lakeport
STAFF REPORT
RE: Civil Grand Jury Report – Response 2018 MEETING DATE: 09/04/2018
SUBMITTED Margaret Silveira, City Manager

BY:
PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item
WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

Review and file 2018 Civil Grand Jury Report Response.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The 2018 Civil Grand Jury Report had three areas of the report which requested City of Lakeport responses.
Attached are two response letters to the Civil Grand Jury, the areas of the report that were responded to by
the City Manager were “Poor Student Attendance Costs Lake County Public Schools”, and “Go Jump in the
Lake.” The Community Development Director responded to “Where’s My Building Permit?”
OPTIONS:
Approve
Disapprove
No action
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time. Account Number: Comments:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Attachments: 1. Civil Grand Jury Report 2017/18

2. Letter to the Civil Grand Jury from City Manager, dated August 28, 2018
3. Letter to the Civil Grand Jury from Community Development Director,
dated August 29, 2018
Meeting Date: 09/04/2018 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.B.

ATTACHMENT 1
2017-2018
Lake County, California
Civil Grand Jury
Final Report
ATTACHMENT 1
Front Cover: Clear Lake and Mount Konocti from Redbud Park, Clearlake, California
Photograph by Mark Rothrock
1
ATTACHMENT 1
Table of Contents
Introduction
Letter from the Foreperson of the Civil Grand Jury .............4
Letter from the Foreperson to the Public ……………………6
Grand Jury History and Organization.....................................8
Grand Jury Functions…………………….................................9
Final Report and Submission of Complaints ........................10
Grand Juror Selection Process and Qualifications ...............12
Responses to Findings and Recommendations.....................13
2017-2018 Laker County Grand Jury Roster .........................14
Final Reports by Committee

Budget and Finance
Absenteeism Costs Lake County Public Schools............................16
Health and Human Services
Lake County Senior Centers..............................................................28
Planning and Public Works
Where’s My Permit? ...........................................................................36
Public Safety
Lake County Detention Facilities.......................................................42
The Wards of Lake County ………………….…….……………..…48
Public Services
Lake County Libraries and Museums...............................................52
Ad Hoc – Insurance
Chaos After The Fires...........................................................................60
2
ATTACHMENT 1
Ad Hoc – Emergency Operations Plan

Go Jump In The Lake...........................................................................112
Ad Hoc – Making Connections
Making Connections............................................................................144
Grand Jury Appendix
Grand Jury Application........................................................................150
Complaint Form.....................................................................................153
3
ATTACHMENT 1
Civil Grand Jury2017/2018

County of Lake
P.O. Box 1078
Kelseyville, CA 95451
June 20, 2018
The Honorable Andrew S. Blum

Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California
County of Lake
255 Forbes Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
Dear Judge Blum,
In accordance with California State Law, we respectfully submit the 2017-2018 Lake County
Civil Grand Jury Report.
The Grand Jury embarked on this year with a set of selected goals to pursue, but we were
quickly moved to listen to, and consider, a vast number of our fellow citizens’ inputs. Some of
these were concerned about the safety and conditions for themselves and their neighbors. Some
were bristling at how they believed they had been treated by various areas within our county
governance. Many believed they had not been listened to by those they expected to be able to
rely on. More than a few of these individual reports reflect those carefully considered inputs
and concerns as the starting point for that report. Our focus was on stressing areas of
improvement rather than just criticism. We strongly believe it has been our responsibility and
our privilege to lend our efforts and our voice to these important issues.
We would specifically like to note that more than several of the agencies/departments with
whom we were conducting multi-month on-going interviews began actions or procedures in
accordance to exactly what we had exposed (simply via the investigation process) was intended
to be some of the end focus/recommendations for our Grand Jury’s Final Report. As noted in
some of the individual reports, we applaud any movement made to improve the situation for
the citizens of our County either because of the final report or because of the investigation itself.
However, just because of any such action, we do not expect those reports to be met with
dismissal, or with then bypassing or ignoring any other equally important recommendations in
that report. This is a concern not only for the Grand Jury, but for all in our County who
hopefully benefit from these reports.
4
ATTACHMENT 1
5
ATTACHMENT 1
6
ATTACHMENT 1
7
ATTACHMENT 1
COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
HISTORY
The institution of the Grand Jury is of ancient origin. Its use
as an instrument of government predates its introduction into our
county during colonial times. It has been continued and used
throughout American history. As constituted today in the State of
California, the Grand Jury is a part of the judicial branch of
government – “an arm of the court”. It does not have the
functions of either the legislative or executive branches, and is not
a police agency. Additionally, it does not mandate policy
changes. It is an examining and investigative body that makes
recommendations to improve systems, procedures, and methods
of operations in designated local government agencies. In Lake
County, the Grand Jury generally performs only civil functions.
ORGANIZATION
The Lake County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) is
composed of nineteen men and women of various backgrounds
chosen from throughout Lake County.
The presiding Superior Court Judge appoints a foreperson
who presides over all jury proceedings and is responsible for
directing the business of the Grand Jury.
Most Grand Jury work is done by committees. The areas of
focus of these committees usually includes: Environment, Juvenile
Justice, Social Services, Health, Administration, Criminal Justice,
Public Works, Special Districts and Public Schools.
The Grand Jury and its committees meet several times a
month. They meet with county and city officials, visit county
facilities, and conduct independent research on matters of interest
or concern. The committees report to the full Grand Jury and
conclusions are reached after discussion and study of issues. The
Grand Jury may seek advice or request the services of the Lake
County Counsel, District Attorney, Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court, or State Attorney General.
8
ATTACHMENT 1
FUNCTIONS
Watchdog Responsibilities:
The major function of the Grand Jury is to examine county and
city government and special districts to ensure that their duties
are being lawfully carried out. The Grand Jury reviews and
evaluates procedures, methods and systems utilized by these
entities to determine whether more efficient and economical
programs may be employed. The Grand Jury is also authorized to:
1. Inspect and audit books, records and financial expenditures to
ensure that public funds are properly accounted for and legally
spent.
2. Inspect books and records of special districts in Lake County.
3. Examine the books and records of any nonprofit organization
receiving county or city funds.
4. Inquire into the conditions of jails and detention facilities.
5. Inquire into any charges of willful misconduct in an office by
public officials or employees.
Response to Citizens Complaints:

The Grand Jury receives letters from citizens alleging
mistreatment by officials, suspicions of misconduct or
governmental inefficiencies. Anyone may ask the Grand Jury to
conduct an investigation. All complaints are confidential. The jury
generally limits investigations to the operations of governmental
agencies, charges of wrong-doing within public agencies, or the
performance of unlawful acts by public officials. Any complaints
that fall into an area of criminal misconduct are referred to the
District attorney. The Grand Jury cannot investigate disputes
between private parties.
9
ATTACHMENT 1
FINAL REPORT
At the end of its term the Grand Jury issues a Final Report,
including any reports released during the year, documenting its
investigations and recommendations. Copies of the Final Report
are distributed to public officials, libraries, the news media, any
interested parties and any entity that is the subject of one if the
reports. According to law, the elected County officers must
respond within sixty (60) days following the release of the Final
Report. The Board of Supervisors and other public agency
governing boards must respond within ninety (90) days.
The Grand Jury’s Final Report summarizes the year’s activities
and contains its findings and recommendations for action and
study. The new Grand Jury reviews the responses of the affected
public agencies and the process of protection the public interest
begins anew.
SUBMISSION OF COMPLAINTS
Although is it not required, complaints should first be
addressed to those responsible for resolution unless it will be
detrimental to the complainant. The Lake County Grand Jury
will respond to all citizens submitting complaints. The citizen may
not have further acknowledgement other than their complaint
was received. A Complaint Form is available in the Appendix.
Additional Complaint Forms may be requested from:
Lake County Civil Grand Jury

PO Box 1078
(707) 279-8619
10
ATTACHMENT 1
GRAND JURY SELECTION PROCESS

The court solicits applications for the Grand Jury by
advertising in the local papers. An Application Form is available
in the Appendix. Additional Applications may be obtained by
mailing a letter with a self-addressed, stamped envelope to:
Grand Jury Coordinator

255 North Forbes Street
Fourth Floor
Lakeport, CA 95453.
(707) 263-2374 ext. 2282
Applications are also available at each Superior Court Clerk’s

office at the above address or at 7000 A South Center Drive,
Clearlake.
Once applications have been screened and approved, they are
randomly selected to be members of the Grand Jury.
QUALIFICATIONS FOR GRAND JURORS
Prospective Grand Jurors must possess the

following qualifications (Penal Code 893):
1. Be a citizen of the United States, of the age of eighteen
(18) years or older who shall have been a resident of the
state and county for one year immediately prior to being
selected.
2. Be in possession of his or her natural faculties, or
ordinary intelligence, sound judgment, and fair
character.
3. Possess sufficient knowledge of the English language.
11
ATTACHMENT 1
A person is not legally required to serve if any of the following

apply:
1. The person is serving as a trial juror in any court of this
state.
2. The person has been discharged as a Grand Juror in any
court of the state within one year.
3. The person has been convicted of malfeasance in office
or any felony or other high crime.
4. The person is serving as an elected public officer.
Desirable qualifications for a Grand Juror include the following:

1. Have the time to make the necessary commitment. It is
not uncommon to serve fifteen to twenty hours a week
or more.
2. Be open-minded with concern for the positions and view
of others.
3. Have the ability to work with others.
4. Have an interest in community affairs.
5. Possess investigative skills and an ability to write
reports
6. Have a general knowledge of the functions, authorities
and responsibilities of county and city government and
other civil entities.
7. Does not pursue a personal agenda/vendetta against
governmental concepts or officials.
12
ATTACHMENT 1
Responses to Findings and Recommendations
In past responses to the Final Reports submitted by the Grand

Jury, the jury and general public has at times found it difficult to
fully understand what has been written.
The 2017-2018 Grand Jury submits the following format to be
used in responding to the reports in the hopes all peoples reading
this Final Report can fully appreciate what the county is doing.
(PC §933.05). This is a format that has been used by the Board of
Supervisors in responding to past reports and has worked very
well.
Thank you.
Name or Report: ______________

Finding or Recommendations #: ____
□ AGREE, has been implemented

□ AGREE, will be implemented within: __________________
□ NEUTRAL, Requires further analysis to be completed within ______
□ DISAGREE, will not be implemented. Explanation: _______________
Response to Citizens Complaints

The Grand Jury receives letters from citizens alleging mistreatment
by officials, suspicions of misconduct or governmental inefficiencies.
Anyone may ask the Grand Jury to conduct an investigation. All
complaints are confidential. The jury generally limits investigations to
the operations of governmental agencies, charges of wrongdoing within
public agencies, or the performance of unlawful acts by public officials.
The Grand Jury cannot investigate disputes between private parties.
13
ATTACHMENT 1
2017-2018 Lake County Civil Grand Jury
Name Role City

Johnallen Chamberlain Clearlake
Susan de Bernardi Kelseyville
Patricia Elliott Recording Secretary Lucerne
Adckinjo Esutoki Parliamentarian Kelseyville
Jack Gingles Foreman Pro Tem Clearlake
Annette Gingles Clearlake
Beverly Hill Recording Secretary Cobb
Maggie Magoolaghan Kelseyville
Bill Magoolaghan Kelseyville
Toni Maier Clearlake
Robert Norgrove Clearlake Oaks
Charlotte Oakes Lakeport
Kathleen O’Connor Lakeport
Mark Rothrock Clearlake
Russ Schroy Foreman Hidden Valley Lake
Paula Schroy Hidden Valley Lake
Dr. C. Richard Smith Kelseyville
John Vance Sergeant at Arms Clearlake Oaks
Jane Weilbacher Kelseyville
14
ATTACHMENT 1
The Lake County Quilt Trail
The Lake County Quilt Trail project—the first of its kind in

California—places painted quilt squares on highly visible barns
and buildings throughout Lake County. It is an agricultural and
tourism project designed to promote and celebrate community
pride.
The Grand Jury is pleased to have been authorized to print the

images from the Quilt Trail Website in the 2017-2018 Final Report.
Lake County Quilt Trail “State Park Bear Claw”

5300 Soda Bay Road, Kelseyville, California
15
ATTACHMENT 1
Budget and Finance
Lake County Quilt Trail “School House”

306 North Main Street, Lakeport, California
16
ATTACHMENT 1
17
ATTACHMENT 1
Poor Student Attendance Costs Lake County

Public Schools
Summary:
For the 2016-17 academic year, all Lake County public schools collectively lost more
than $5.3 million in revenue due to student absenteeism. State revenues for public
schools are earned through a funding formula based on school attendance. When a
student is absent, excused or not, the school loses revenue.
In Lake County, efforts to coordinate public school attendance improvement have

been significantly reduced or abandoned due to costs and lack of results. Currently,
there are no coordinated countywide programs to improve school attendance. Though
every school district does have improving school attendance in their Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP), attendance has not improved.
Two strong recommendations come from educators to improve attendance. First,

there needs to be a countywide emphasis, through all agencies that deal with parents
and children working in concert, to promote regular school attendance. Second, there
needs to be greater opportunity in all school districts for children to begin formal
education at a much earlier age than kindergarten. Some emphasis with parents in
these early age programs must be placed on the value of regular school attendance.
In order to engender greater attention to the value of regular school attendance,

Superintendents of the public school districts should be required to regularly publish
school attendance figures, including the value of lost revenue due to absenteeism.
Background:
For several years, since 2013, the California Attorney General has been issuing
reports on the extent to which California public elementary schools have been losing
revenue due to student absenteeism. (In School + On Track 2015) The report states,
“Over the past six years, school districts in California have lost an estimated $7.3 billion
in funding due to student absences.”
Note of explanation: The focus of this report is on ‘absenteeism’. That is defined as

the missing of school on a daily – often-sporadic – basis. “Truancy” is a legally defined
term dealing with excessive and continued absenteeism without valid excuses.
18
ATTACHMENT 1
Methodology:
The Grand Jury (GJ) read the above described California Attorney General 2013-2017
reports to understand what the Attorney General had concluded about this issue.
These reports were considered substantial evidence that there is a problem in Lake
County.
The Lake County Office of Education (LCOE) indicated they had an ongoing concern
for this issue. Indications from the LCOE were that all six school districts were losing
significant revenue due to absenteeism.
The Grand Jury interviewed the Superintendents of several county school districts in
order to determine how they were handling school attendance issues and the loss of
revenue.
Discussion:
The loss of revenue to Lake County public school districts due to absenteeism was
raised by the LCOE in a published article (see bibliography). A major concern was that
absent students were not learning at the rate that they should because they were not in
their seats at school. LCOE also raised the concern that county schools were thereby
losing state revenue for public instruction. LCOE cited the studies by the California
Attorney General, referenced above, in which it was stated “Students who do not
regularly attend school are more likely to [become] unemployed, incarcerated, and on
public assistance”. Thus, the real cost to the public is far greater in terms of economic
development, public welfare and law enforcement.
A report by the LCOE (Figure 1.) shows that for the 2016-17 school year, Lake
County public school districts lost a total of $5,350,634 due to absenteeism in the second
reporting period.
19
ATTACHMENT 1
Figure 1. Average Daily Attendance Impact on Funding Formula Revenues by District

and County-Wide*
District Enrollment P2 Attendance Maximum Actual Loss in

ADA Funding Funding Funding
Funded
Kelseyville 1711 1584 92.6 % $ 16.6 M $ 15.5 M $ 1.1 M
Konocti 3365 3055 90.8 % $ 33.6 M $ 30.8 M $ 2.8 M
Lakeport 1534 1479 96.4 % $ 13.3 M $ 13.0 M $ 0.3 M
Lucerne 264 245 92.8 % $ 2.7 M $2.5 M $ 0.2 M
Middletown 1450 1395 96.3 % $ 12.7 M $ 12.4 M $ 0.3 M
Upper Lake 834 764 91.6 % $ 8.2 M $ 7.6 M $ 0.6 M

County-wide 9158 8523 93.1 % $ 87.1 M $ 81.8 M $ 5.4 M
* Revenue amount is calculated on the number of students absent, not the percentage of
attendance.
To be fair, no school district is going to achieve 100% attendance, and will always
lose some funding in the state School Funding Formula. What is an acceptable rate of
attendance? Two of the six county school districts have achieved attendance rates of
96% (Figure 2.) This tends to then set a desirable standard for the county of at least 94%
attendance. The other four school districts are well below that standard.
Although every public school district has a goal in its Local Control and
Accountability Plan (LCAP) to improve attendance, it is evident that improving
performance is very difficult to achieve. In the first quarter report of school attendance
(P1), from 2016 to 2017, the overall attendance loss for county school districts was down
2% from the prior year. (Figure 2.) Three of the six school districts actually had lower
attendance rates than the prior year.
20
ATTACHMENT 1
Figure 2. The difference in school district reporting period 1 (P1) attendance rates
between year 2016-17 and 2017-18.
District 16-17 17-18 Percent 16-17 17-18 Percent Change in

P1 Pi
Enrollment Enrollment Difference Attend. Attend. Difference Percent
KVUSD 1724 1702 -0.22 1599 1588 -0.11 0.11

KUSD 3365 3489 1.24 3189 3092 -0.97 -2.21
LUSD 1534 1503 -0.31 1469 1448 -0.21 0.1
MUSD 1450 1455 0.05 1388 1399 0.11 0.06
LESD 264 263 -0.01 247 243 -0.04 -0.03
ULUSD 834 838 0.04 769 765 -0.04 -0.08

County 9171 9250 0.79 8661 8535 -1.26 -2.05
(KVUSD – Kelseyville, KUSD – Konocti, LUSD – Lakeport, MUSD – Middletown, LESD
– Lucerne, ULUSD – Upper Lake)
The Attorney General’s report (In School + On Track 2015) indicates high rates of
truancy and chronic absenteeism for low-income students. Lake County has a higher
percentage of people living in poverty than the California population in general. In the
A.G. report (page 10), Lake County is with eight other counties at the bottom of the
elementary school attendance figures for the state.
(The Grand Jury notes there are many causes for a student being absent. Clearly,
there are short and long-term sickness issues, bullying, early pregnancy, health and
developmental issues, drug abuse, and other issues that also contribute to the issue.
The intent of this report is to focus on the largest contributing factor of chronic
absenteeism.)
Comparing school attendance figures with reports of median family income in the
county illustrates the connection between poverty and attendance rates. (Figure 3.) It is
clear from the comparison that school districts with lower median household income
have greater challenges in improving school attendance.
21
ATTACHMENT 1
Figure 3. Comparison between median income, school attendance rate, and estimated
loss in revenue for Lake County areas.
Area Median Attendance Estimated Loss Loss Absent

Household Rate in Revenue* Student/Day
Income (determined
by
the state)
Lakeport $ 36,361 96% $ 364,287 $ 24.07
Middletown $ 35,278 96% $ 313,629 $ 32.27
Konocti $ 25,404 91% $ 2,860,911 $ 51.27
Kelseyville $ 24,363 93% $ 1,086,175 $ 47.51
Upper Lake $ 22,148 92% $ 525,362 $ 41.70
Lucerne No data $200,279 $ 58.56
Lake County 92% $ 5,350,643 $ 46.67
* Revenue amount is calculated on the number of students absent, not the percentage
attendance.
School Districts should provide information to all concerned that each student who is
absent not only costs the district revenue, but also robs the attending students of
revenue that would be used for their educational benefit. The amount that a student
who is absent for one day costs the district varies by district based on the state funding
formula and the number of students enrolled at various grade levels (Figure 3.).
In interviews with three school district Superintendents, they all expressed the need
to improve attendance, but cited the lack of revenue to support attendance services as a
hindrance. This ‘chicken-egg’ argument contradicts the fact that by improving
attendance the district could pay for such services, thereby improving educational
opportunity for students. A dismaying fact in the interviews was that none of the
Superintendents was able to cite the latest attendance figures and had no idea of how
much revenue the district was losing due to absenteeism.
The LCOE reported that it had not been able to achieve a consolidated view towards
focusing on attendance problems among the county public school districts. School
districts in the past had withdrawn from a consolidated countywide attendance-
counselling program primarily due to funding issues. Subsequently, the LCOE has
announced that it has formed a ‘task force’ focused on absenteeism reduction.
22
ATTACHMENT 1
*****Special Notation: The Grand Jury has become aware that, after months of
investigation into this area, the LCOE – along with the several district
superintendents - has launched a specific focus group on this area. The Grand
Jury applauds any actions taken in response to the focus of its investigations
instead of actions taken only following issuance of its Final Report. Whatever
stimulus initiates the beneficial change/action is helpful to all the people of our
communities.
According to school officials, both local and at the state level, breaking this cycle of
poor attendance is a significant challenge for public schools. This is primarily because
the public school has little influence over the income level or school interest of parents.
Programs to educate parents as to the advantage to their children of regular school
attendance are difficult. Often this is because parents tend not to read information
materials distributed by schools or attend information or training sessions provided by
the schools. There is no legislation requiring parents to be involved in the education of
their children or penalizes them for lack of participation.
Parents may become involved when the child becomes ‘chronically or habitually
truant’ and schools may employ strategies to get such parental involvement. If the
parents resist involvement and the student does not improve, the school district will
refer the student and parents to a School Attendance Review Board (SARB) made up of
school, child protection, and law enforcement officials. Local school officials agree that
SARB lacks effectiveness because it is too late in the process of remediation.
The Lake County Office of Education, with the Lake County Office of the District
Attorney and the County school districts, have already instituted efforts to improve
attendance in Lake County public school districts. (Lake County News, August 19,
2017) This effort acknowledges that poor school attendance is a community-wide
problem that affects all parts of the community, not just the schools.
Attendance improvement can start at an earlier age than Kindergarten. School

officials all agree that children should start pre-school education by age 3. Educators
believe that if the parent learns to prepare and get the child to an early childhood
education program at an earlier age, both the child and the parent will be more likely to
support regular public school attendance later. Preschool programs have not
traditionally been exclusive to the school districts.
23
ATTACHMENT 1
County and city governments should look for opportunities to create preschool
programs as a way to positively influence school attendance.
There are multiple unused or under-used buildings in the incorporated cities and in
the demographically denser areas of the county that could be adapted for use as a pre-
school. Clearly these would need structural adaptation (bathrooms appropriate for age
3 to 5, separated classrooms, some appropriate office area, etc.) and such funding could
be specifically sought from both California State and federal funds designated for early
childhood education. These locations should be assigned to the closest existing school
district to minimize additional costs of administration, insurance, reporting structures,
record maintenance and mandatory reports and budget adherence.
Findings:
F1. Absenteeism is a significant problem in Lake County public school districts,

where the absentee rate in most districts is worse than state average.
F2. Lake County public schools are losing significant revenue due to the absentee
rates of students. Figure 1. Shows that Lake County schools are losing significant
revenue.
F3. Lake County public school districts recognize the negative impact of absenteeism
on both the education of students and revenue.
F4. Lake County public school officials recognize that the high level of poverty in the
Lake County community is a significant contributor to high levels of absenteeism.
F5. Lake County public schools have only limited resources to intercede with
students and parents in order to combat absenteeism.
F6. The most difficult issue in dealing with chronic absenteeism is the lack of
cooperation from parents who themselves did not have good educational
experiences and are poorly educated.
F7. County educators believe that the most effective way to reduce absenteeism in
the higher grades is to establish a strong dedication to attendance by the students
when they are in preschool and in the primary grades (K – 3).
F8. The stated County focus on creating a longer term improved economic
base and being an attraction for multiple categories of businesses and investments
would be greatly served by enhancing the educational quality and success
24
ATTACHMENT 1
throughout the county. It has been broadly proven that readily available and
utilized pre-schools establish a firmer base for children entering into the primary
school level to achieve learning and socialization goals. Such firm foundations do
continue into greater learning in the higher grades, improved standard testing
results, greater numbers of high school graduates, and higher percentages of
students continuing into college level education. This is a long-range tactic to firmly
augment the County’s long-term goal.
Recommendations:
R1. Public school districts must work more closely with each other and county
agencies to promote school attendance and to intercede in cases of truancy. This
effort should be done in concert such that the consideration of school attendance is
raised as a countywide priority, and efforts are coordinated to both improve
attendance services and contain costs. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6.)
R2. The Lake County Office of Education, school districts and the county and city
governments should establish early childhood education opportunities for children
ages 3-5. Appropriate government departments in the incorporated cities and in the
County should be directed to identify such available public structures (in their
respective jurisdictions) that could be modified to function as workable
preschools. Active efforts to identify any state or federal or private funding sources
for the modifications and ongoing operation of such preschools should be
established. (F1, F2, F4, F8)
R3. The County Superintendent of Schools and the Superintendents of the various
school districts should publish to their Boards, parents and communities P1, P2, and
P3 attendance reports along with an estimate of revenue loss due to absenteeism.
(F6)
R4. School districts should establish specific programs involving parents and
children in promoting school attendance. (i.e. proven programs from other counties
such as ‘attendance buddies’, car-pooling, walking groups, etc. for the lower
primary grades.) This can be quickly enacted, have minimum cost, and show
significant impact. (F7)
25
ATTACHMENT 1
Request for Responses:
Pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), the following responses are required:
Lake County Board of Supervisors (R2) (90 days)
Lakeport City Council (R2) (90 days)
Clearlake City Council (R2) (90 days)
Superintendent of Schools, Lake County (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60 days)
President of School Board, Kelseyville Unified School District (R3, R4) (60 days)
President of School Board, Konocti Unified School District (R3, R4) (60 days)
President of School Board, Lakeport Unified School District (R3, R4) (60 days)
President of School Board, Lucerne Elementary School District (R3, R4) (60 days)
President of School Board, Upper Lake Unified School District (R3, R4) (60 days)
President of School Board, Middletown Unified School District (R3, R4) (60 days)
The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond:
Board of Supervisors, Lake County (R1) (90 days)
City Council, City of Clearlake (R1) (90 days)
City Council, City of Lakeport (R1) (90 days)
Superintendent of Schools, Kelseyville Unified School District (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60 days)
Superintendent of Schools, Konocti Unified School District (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60 days)
Superintendent of Schools, Lakeport Unified School District (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60 days)
Superintendent of Schools, Lucerne Elementary School District (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60
days)
Superintendent of Schools, Upper Lake Unified School District (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60
days)
Superintendent of Schools, Middletown Unified School District (R1, R2, R3, R4) (60
days)
District Attorney, Lake County (R1, R2)
26
ATTACHMENT 1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. (IN SCHOOL + ON TRACK 2016; Attorney General’s Report on California’s

Elementary School Truancy & Absenteeism Crisis;
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/tr/truancy_2016_en.pdf)
2. “Lake County officials work to address school truancy”, Lake County News,
August 19,2017; http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php/news/52029-lake-
county-officials-work-to-address-school-truancy
27
ATTACHMENT 1
Health and Human Services
Lake County Quilt Trail “Moon Over Mount Konocti”

Kelseyville Senior Center
5245 Third Street, Kelseyville, California
28
ATTACHMENT 1
29
ATTACHMENT 1
Lake County Senior Centers
Summary:
The Grand Jury began this investigation regarding concerns about restaurant food
safety. Then the Senior Centers became the focus of the investigation, so the Grand Jury
toured the Senior Centers in Lake County. They serve as a community activity center
for the local senior populations.
The Lake County Senior Centers depend on the Volunteers. More volunteers are
always needed. Each center has a program uniquely designed for its population. The
centers offer Meals on Wheels and a daily lunch.
The centers are only as good as the volunteers and paid staff who devote their time
and energies. When visiting the senior centers, you are warmly greeted by volunteers.
The volunteers work hard with enthusiasm and compassionate caring.
Some centers have other means of improving the financial needs of the center by
other functions such as bingo, bake sales, renting the spaces (county owned buildings)
etc.
Background:
The Grand Jury began our investigation looking into County food preparation safety
inspection processes. The Grand Jury then decided to look into the County Senior
Centers’ facilities and food preparation safety. While the senior Centers may appear to
be privately owned non-profit corporations, all of them receive funds directly from the
County and several are on land owned by the county and another on property owned
by an incorporated city. The property ownership is of importance when considering
potential liability arising from issues cited in the further report. (Reference California
Penal Codes Section §933.6)
30
ATTACHMENT 1
Discussion and Analysis:
The Clearlake (Highlands) Senior-Community Center:
The Clearlake Senior Center is located on 3245 Bowers Avenue in the City of
Clearlake. The City of Clearlake owns and maintains the building and the property.
The center has fund raising activities throughout the year to offset the cost of programs.
The center has a large garden that provides some vegetables for the meals they serve.
There are garden areas available to the public for a reasonable rental rate per year.
The Lakeport Senior Center:
The Lakeport Senior Center is located on 527 Konocti Avenue in the city of Lakeport,
and is the main community activity center for seniors in the greater Lakeport area. The
Center has a small community garden. The senior center also operates a thrift store
located at First and Main Streets in Lakeport.
31
ATTACHMENT 1
The Kelseyville Senior Center:
The Kelseyville Senior Center is located on 5245 Third Street in the community of
Kelseyville. Kelseyville is the smallest of the senior centers. The director of the
Lakeport Senior Center oversees the Kelseyville Senior Center. The center has a small
kitchen used primarily for reheating meals and preparation of very simple meals.
Meals served at the center are prepared by the Lakeport Senior Center and then
transported to the Kelseyville Senior Center.
The Clearlake Oaks Senior Center:
The Clearlake Oaks Senior Center is located on 12502 Foothill Blvd. in the
community of Clearlake Oaks. The center is located in a newer county owned building
with excellent facilities and is being well maintained.
32
ATTACHMENT 1
The Middletown Senior Center:
The Middletown Senior Center is located on 21256 Washington St. in the

community of Middletown. The center serves as a community activity center for the
local senior population. The Center shares the large community center with the
Middletown Public Library in a five-year-old County owned building.
The Lucerne Alpine Senior Center:
Damaged Sidewalk and Stairs
The Lucerne Alpine Senior Center, built in 1930, is located on 3985 Country Club Dr.
in the community of Lucerne. The Senior Center serves as a community activity center
for the local senior population. It also serves as a meeting facility for the local
communities.
At the time of the investigation minor repairs to the building were being
accomplished by volunteers. There is a need for more help in the maintenance and
upkeep of the building. The sidewalk and stairs in front of the building are cracked and
in need of repair.
33
ATTACHMENT 1
*****(Note to the Citizens of Lake County: Concerns were raised that the Senior
Centers, as a whole, were outside of the purview of the Grand Jury. These concerns
were discussed and evaluated seriously, but eventually the Grand Jury decided –
unanimously – that our responsibility as people to shed light on a set of conditions that
might bring jeopardy to a vulnerable but highly respected portion of our County
outweighed those “technical” concerns. We believe that people who also care will share
our desire to see a resolution of those conditions and protect those to whom we owe so
much.) *****
Lake County Senior Centers Statistics:

Meals Health
Senior
Financial Arrangement: Served Department
Center:
Annually: Grade:
Rents building from the
Clearlake: City of Clearlake for $1,625 37,107 100%
a month
Building is owned and
Lakeport: 34,211 98%
maintained by the center
Included in
Kelseyville: Lakeport 95%
total
Rents the building from
Clearlake
Lake County for $1.00 Per 25,216 100%
Oaks:
year
Rents the building from the
Middletown: Lake County for $5.00 per 15,275 100%
year on a five year lease
Rents the building from
Lucerne: Lake County for $1.00 a 22,479 100%
year on a ten year contract.
Methodology:
The Grand Jury met with the various Senior Centers’ Executive Directors and staff
members. The Grand Jury reviewed the Senior Centers’ written policies, procedures,
budgets, food safety inspection reports, and operational functions.
34
ATTACHMENT 1
Findings:
F1. There is a real need for the Centers to be able to communicate with the County
District Supervisors.
F2. The Senior Centers do not have adequate signage on the main thoroughfares to
direct patrons to their locations.
F3. The handicap door at the entrance to the Clearlake Oaks Senior Center does not
function properly.
F4. The sidewalks in front of the Lucerne Center are in dis-repair.
F5. The food inspection process as performed by the County inspectors at each of the
Senior Centers has been done properly and shows no area of concern or discrepancy.
Recommendations:
R1. The BOS should communicate quarterly with their associated Senior Center
representatives in order to address specific concerns. (F1)
R2. Install correct or additional signage to direct patrons to the Senior Centers. (F2)
R3. The County should ensure that the Clearlake Oaks Senior Centers’ handicap
entrance functions properly. (F3)
R4. The County should repair the sidewalks in front of the Lucerne Alpine Senior
Center. (F4)

Pursuant to Penal Code §933(c), the following response is required.
 Board of Supervisors (R1,R2,R3) (90 days)
 County Code Enforcement (R1,R2) (60 days)

 County Fire Marshall or appropriate Fire Chiefs(R1,R2) (60 days)
 County Building Inspections Department (R1,R2) (60 days)
 County Community Development Department (R4) (60 days)
 County Public Works Department (R4) (60 days)
 County Area Agency on Aging (AAA) (R3) (60 days)
35
ATTACHMENT 1
Planning and Public Works
Lake County Quilt Trail “Home Sweet Home”

1002 11th Street, Lakeport, California
36
ATTACHMENT 1
37
ATTACHMENT 1
Where’s My Building Permit?
Summary:
Between 2015 and 2017 Lake County suffered many devastating wildfires. The
county had never experienced such a large emergency and therefore did not have an
updated comprehensive emergency plan in place. The Lake County Community
Development Department failed to meet the greater needs of the public. The Grand Jury
found there needs to be more cooperation between the County and the various
communities and city directors.
Background:
In the past three years, our beautiful Lake County has suffered many devastating
wildfires. Elements of the Lake County government were unprepared to respond
appropriately to the sudden greater needs experienced by the public.
After final containment of the Valley fire, it became apparent that the Lake County
Building and Planning Department is significantly understaffed and unprepared for the
unprecedented increase in workload. This led to a backlog of inspection and plan
approvals, frustrating the public with lengthy delays. The Building and Planning
Department did not have an emergency fund. The County found it necessary to hire
outside contractors to perform planning approvals and inspections.
38
ATTACHMENT 1
One County Supervisor was performing inspections (and a second County

Supervisor was being trained) to support the Community Development Department
due to staffing issues within that department. This may not have been necessary had
the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) existing between Lake County and the
cities of Lakeport and Clearlake been activated. The MOU, had it been activated, could
have allowed the cities to provide the needed personnel to expedite plan approvals and
inspections. The cities confirmed that they were not contacted by the Lake County
Community Development Department for help during or after the catastrophes.
Methodology:
The Grand Jury began this investigation from a complaint regarding poor
management and inspection procedures in the County’s Community Development
Department. The Grand Jury interviewed the pertinent persons from the County and
cities.
Problems within the Lake County Community Development Department were more
extensive than first appeared. The Clearlake and Lakeport City Building and Planning
Departments were performing well and could serve as a model for Lake County.
Findings:
F 1. The Lake County Community Development Department was unprepared to

fulfill its role in rebuilding after the wildfires.
F 2. The Lake County Community Development Department did not have
adequate inspection staff to manage the greater needs of the affected public.
F 3. The Lake County Community Development Department has a staff retention
issue.
F 4. The public became increasingly frustrated with the Lake County Community
Development Department’s lengthy delays in processing their rebuilding
permits and inspections.
F 5. There is a shortage of available and trained staff to expedite the rebuilding
documentation process.
F 6. There is a shortage of trained building inspectors, leading to long waits for
periodic and final inspections.
39
ATTACHMENT 1
F 7. The Grand Jury’s analysis is that Clearlake and Lakeport have well run and
efficient Building and Planning Departments and could have been of
significant assistance had the MOU been utilized.
F 8. The County Community Development Department does not communicate
with the Cities of Clearlake and Lakeport regarding mutual aid.
Recommendations:
R 1. In an emergency, Lake County should call on all of its available resources.

This should include the activation of the currently functioning MOUs. (F1, F2,
F3, F5, F6, F7, F8)
R 2. The Lake County Community Development Department should create an
apprentice program similar to the one used by the City of Clearlake in order
to promote new employment in their department.(F4)
R 3. The Community Development Department should be prepared to streamline
their processes in an emergency. (F1)
R 4. The Community Development Department should establish a fund
specifically allocated for emergencies. (F1)
R 5. Establish yearly Countywide Community Development/Building and
Inspection Department meetings to include the representatives from the cities
of Lakeport and Clearlake Building and Planning Departments. (F8)

Pursuant to Penal Code §933(c), the following response is required.
 Board of Supervisors (R1,R4) (90 days)

 Head of Lake County Community Development Department

(R2,R3,R4,R5) (60 days)
 Head of Clearlake Building and Planning Department
(R3,R5) (60 days)
 Head of Lakeport Building and Planning Department (R3,R5) (60 days)
40
ATTACHMENT 1
41
ATTACHMENT 1
Public Safety
Lake County Quilt Trail “Carl’s Compass”

2090 Bell Hill Road, Kelseyville, California
42
ATTACHMENT 1
43
ATTACHMENT 1
Mandated Prison Inspections
Summary:
As mandated by the State of California, the Grand Jury inspects public prisons. This
year, due to a new contract with Tehama County, the Grand Jury inspected the Juvenile
Hall in Red Bluff. The Grand Jury decided to create two separate reports, adult and
juvenile, covering the mandated inspections.
The adult facilities largely met or exceeded minimum requirements. The juvenile
facility raised a number of concerns which are addressed in detail in the second report
(“The Wards of Lake County”.)
Background:
The State of California mandates (Penal Code §919 (b)) “The grand jury shall inquire
into the conditions and management of the public prisons within the county” which is
interpreted as all locations where anyone can be incarcerated (from very short-term to
longer terms).
The various facilities within the County appear to handle their difficult tasks with
professionalism and competence. There are notable budgetary and staffing limitations
that make effectiveness and efficiency more difficult.
Methodology:
The Grand Jury conducted onsite inspections for all correctional facilities, including
holding cells, in the County. The Grand Jury reviewed reports of previous inspections
by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) and the previous year’s
Grand Jury. The Grand Jury interviewed staff at the facilities.
Discussion:
1.) The Clearlake Police Department temporary holding facility:

This facility is adequately run under existing staffing and funding
constraints. The utilization of dedicated volunteers was specifically
noticed by the Grand Jury. They are an important component to the
continuing operations.
44
ATTACHMENT 1
There are deficient conditions in this facility’s holding cells:

a.) None of the cells have a ‘grab bar’ by the bed to meet the needs
of a disabled person or comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
b.) At the time of inspection there were no clean blankets available
for use by a detainee.
c.) If there were to be an in-cell emergency, there is inadequate
monitoring of the cells for detainee safety. Most monitoring is
via the dispatcher who is located in another part of the building
and may not be able to respond to such an emergency. Cameras
being used only show the upper portions of the cells. They do
not show floor areas where someone may be in distress. This
may result in insufficient response to an emergency.
2.) Courthouse Holding Facility:
The holding area is not up to current standards, e.g. the concrete

cells have out-of-date iron bars instead of Plexiglas, and the toilets
are not ADA compliant.
b. Due to the limited staff the movement of detainees between the

Hill Road facility and the Courthouse can be problematic. While
there are five vans for transportation, staffing is insufficient to
operate them all at the same time.
3.) Hill Road County Jail
The Hill Road Detention Center is the transfer and housing facility for the adults
incarcerated in Lake County.
Background:
The previous Grand Jury report had expressed concerns regarding the control room
monitoring station being inadequately staffed. There were also issues with ongoing
facility overcrowding. This year’s inspection found the consolidation of the surveillance
and monitoring stations into a larger space had been initiated and the hiring of another
staff member was planned. There is no apparent relief from the ongoing overcrowding
issues in the foreseeable future. This is due to changes in California law, which are
affecting all California counties.
45
ATTACHMENT 1
The Grand Jury found that the volunteer who ran the adult literacy program at the
facility had retired. This halted the normally on-going adult literacy program.
The Grand Jury recognizes that there are several areas in which the Hill Road facility
management exceeded the BSCC expectations on proactive and progressive handling of
incarcerated prisoners.
4.) Konocti Conservation Camp:
The camp is a collaboration between State Department of Corrections and CalFire.

Their primary focus is on firefighting. They also operate a Mobile Kitchen Unit
servicing a great portion of the State during emergencies.
Findings:
F1. The Clearlake holding facility is not ADA compliant.
F2. The Clearlake holding cells are inadequately monitored.
F3. The Hill Road County Jail is well maintained and professionally managed.
F4. A volunteer is needed for the Adult Literacy Program at the Hill Road facility.
F5. The Lake County Library system has individuals identified who provide adult
literacy training.
Recommendations:
R1. The Clearlake Police Department should take reasonable measures to ensure
disabled persons can manage adequately while in custody. (F1)
R2. The Clearlake Police Department should analyze and update the prisoner
monitoring systems. (F2)
R3. The Hill Road County Jail management and the County Library System
management should jointly define and install an appropriate Adult Literacy
instructor. (F4, F5)
46
ATTACHMENT 1
 Lake County Sheriff (R3) (60 days)

 Clearlake City Council (R1, R2) (90 days)
 Chief of Police, Clearlake (R1, R2) (60 days)

 Hill Road facility Captain-in-Charge (R3) (60 days)
 Lake County Director of Libraries (R3) (60 days)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Design
Guide: Accessible Cells in Correctional Facilities
2. “Aging in Correctional Custody: Setting a Policy Agenda for Older Prisoner

Health Care”, Brie A. Williams, MD, MS, Marc F. Stern, MD, MPH, Jeff Mellow,
PhD, Meredith Safer, MPH, and Robert B. Greiﬁnger, MD. American Journal of
Public Health August 2012, Vol 102, No. 8
47
ATTACHMENT 1
The Wards of Lake County
Summary:
The Lake County Juvenile Facility was closed in 2015 due to structural deficiencies
and cost concerns. The Lake County Probation Department subsequently contracted
with Mendocino County to house our juvenile wards in the Mendocino County Juvenile
Detention Facility. At the time for contract renewal there were unresolved issues related
to cost. The Lake County Chief of Probation made the decision to contract with Tehama
County to house Lake County wards in the Juvenile Hall in Red Bluff commencing on
October 1, 2017. The Lake County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) toured the facility and
has concerns and issues regarding the selection and operation of the Tehama County
Juvenile Hall.
Methodology:
The Grand Jury inspected the Tehama County Juvenile Hall and met with the
appropriate staff from both counties. The Grand Jury reviewed previous reports by the
Board of State & Community Corrections (BSCC). The Grand Jury also reviewed the
Tehama County Juvenile Hall website. A review of past and current contracts was
completed.
Background:
The contract that Lake County Probation Department had with Mendocino County
required payment for a minimum number of wards. Mendocino County proposed an
increase in those costs with the impending new contract. As a result, the Lake County
Chief of Probation decided to explore alternatives. This led to the selection of Tehama
County’s Juvenile Hall.
The following rationale was cited for this decision:
 Lower costs due to no minimum number of wards and lower daily cost.
 Tehama County houses wards from multiple counties with complete integration
resulting in no psychological segregation as was apparent in Mendocino County.
 Programs offered at the Tehama Juvenile Hall were expansive and impressive.
48
ATTACHMENT 1
The Grand Jury identified the following concerns regarding the Tehama Juvenile Hall:
 Transportation logistics (approximately 100+ miles/and an hour and a half each

way from Lake County) resulted in greater travel times and costs for all staff as
well as parent/guardians of wards of Lake County.
To address the logistics, the Probation Department transports ward(s) from Lake
County Probation to Red Bluff by police vehicle- either car or van. The
transporting Probation Officer will stop to get meals for the ward(s) if necessary.
Additionally, Lake County Probation Department offers to provide free
transportation to parents/guardians for visitation.
 Video calls via Skype are available to parents/guardians at the Lake County
Probation Department for a fee. (This information was provided by Tehama
Juvenile Hall officials and reiterated when questioned. Lake County Probation
Department officials state there is no charge for such activities. Areas of such
confusion may need to be resolved by the appropriate people in Tehama and
Lake Counties.)
 It was unclear to the Grand Jury whether the wards were getting timely meetings
with their Probation Officers.
The physical facility, monitoring of the wards, and their supervision met the Grand
Jury’s expectations.
The Grand Jury determined that various assets and programs cited as additional
reasons for selecting the Tehama Juvenile Hall were not described realistically or were
non-existent.
There were a number of concerns that were subsequently addressed by the

appropriate authorities after being brought to their attention by the Grand Jury.
Specifically:
 The wards were being fed a light dinner at 4:30PM and not fed again until
6:30AM the following morning. This was far too long a gap for adequate
nourishment.
 The Medical access on site was not what was stipulated in the contract.
 At the time of inspection the Lake County Superintendent of Schools had not
contacted the Facility to coordinate curriculum.
49
ATTACHMENT 1
The Grand Jury found that the Tehama Juvenile Hall classrooms were exceptional
and addressed the various educational needs of individual students. One of the biggest
incentives for the wards was an earned opportunity once a week to use the Makers Lab.
This workshop offers hands-on skill building in a variety of projects that are not limited
to crafts or music, but also Auto-CAD 3D printing.
*****Special Notation: The Grand Jury is aware that, after we raised concerns, the
County Probation Department instituted specific changes regarding the care of
the wards. The Grand Jury applauds actions taken in response to the focus of its
inspections or concerns instead of only following issuance of its Final Report.
Whatever stimulus initiates the beneficial change/action is helpful for this area
of County responsibility.
Per the stipulations of Grand Jury service, individual jurors may recuse themselves
in any area where a conflict of interest may be interpreted. As two jurors are members
of the Lake County Juvenile Justice Commission, they recused themselves from all
activities and discussions regarding the wards of Lake County and the Juvenile Hall.
Findings:
F1) The Lake County Probation Department decision to relocate the wards to Tehama
County was primarily based on financial considerations and made without adequate
consultation with other involved County departments (Lake County Office of
Education, Lake County Health Department, Lake County Department of Behavioral
Health, Lake County Juvenile Justice Commission).
F2) There was a lack of continuity and completeness of information regarding the wards
provided by Juvenile Probation to the Juvenile Justice Commission and appropriate
Presiding Judge.
F3) At the time of the Grand Jury inspection, no coordination of educational

responsibilities had been made between the Lake County Office of Education and its
counterpart in Tehama County.
F4) The current contract with Tehama County lacks specificity regarding the details of
care for the Lake County wards.
F5) At the time of the inspection of the Tehama County Juvenile Hall, the meal
schedules were not appropriate to maintain good nutrition and optimal health for
teenagers.
50
ATTACHMENT 1
F6) The ‘benefits’ offered by the Tehama County Juvenile Hall, as cited on their website,
specifically regarding accessibility of medical oversight/care and in rehabilitative
programs available for the wards, were inadequate or non-existent. This website was
taken down upon the Grand Jury’s questioning of the discrepancies.
Recommendations:
R1) Decisions regarding wards should not be prioritized by monetary concerns alone.
(F1)
R2) The accurate location and status of wards shall be shared by the Lake County
Probation Department with the Lake County Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Commission. (F2)
R3) The Lake County Probation Department should consult with all stakeholders and
agencies when drafting any new contracts or contract extensions regarding juvenile
detentions. (F1, F2, F3)
R4) The Lake County Office of Education should initiate contact and further coordinate
educational aspects and requirements for the Lake County wards housed in the Tehama
County Juvenile Hall. (F3)
R5) Future contracts should include specific goals and responsibilities for health care,
mental health care, and education for the Lake County wards. (F1, F3, F4, F5, F6)
Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R5) (90 days)
Lake County Office of Education (R4) (60 days)
Lake County Probation Department (R1, R2, R3, R5) (60 days)
Lake County Department of Public Health (R5) (60 days)
Lake County Department of Behavioral Health (R5) (60 days)
51
ATTACHMENT 1
Public Services
Lake County Quilt Trail “Middletown Library”

21267 Washington Street, Middletown, California
52
ATTACHMENT 1
53
ATTACHMENT 1
THE TOUCHABLE SOUL OF LAKE COUNTY
Our Libraries and Our Museums
We live in a progression. From our past to our future there is a line that threads it,
and us, together. The past, where we all emanated from, is laid out before us in our
museums which are the written footprint of humanity. The future, so splendid in its
technology, has its groundwork laid in our schools. The thread that binds the museums
of our past and schools that educate our future generation are our libraries. Libraries
stoke the imaginations and creativity that are the groundwork for the future.
We have, in our small but treasured County, a group of museums and libraries that
not only serve us well in their roles along the thread, but also can do even more in
enhancing the lives of all of our people from the youngest to the most senior among us.
The support of these assets is important for our County, and should be acknowledged
and actively worked for. The benefits of actively supporting these assets will be felt
across our lives in many ways, and the binding thread between our past and future will
become stronger and more vital.
Methodology:
The Grand Jury visited multiple libraries and all museums in the County and
interviewed numerous staff. Library facilities in various school systems were also
visited. Research was performed on methods of expanding library services in rural
areas and associated costs/benefits. Members of the Grand Jury attended all of the
“Community Visioning Forums.”
Discussion:
The Grand Jury began its interest/investigation into the libraries and museums in
September and had completed many of its activities by the start of the New Year. The
Grand Jury’s initial focus was the interaction between the libraries and museums and
the public school system. However, the focus expanded to include the overall role that
libraries and museums play in the quality of life of our residents. During the
‘Community Visioning Forums’ conducted throughout the County in early 2018, many
citizens made comments/recommendations on the need to increase support for these
institutions. The Grand Jury is pleased that the findings and recommendations of this
report are aligned with the opinions of so many concerned people in our County. We
believe that increased support of the libraries and museums in Lake County is
necessary and the cost will be outweighed by the resulting improvement to our quality
of life.
54
ATTACHMENT 1
Libraries:
There are four public libraries in the County: Lakeport, Redbud/Clearlake,

Middletown and Upper Lake. Due to cost constraints, the libraries have limited staff
and operating hours.
The Grand Jury explored the interaction between the public library system and the
public schools in the County. It should be noted that the public libraries do have a very
active “Storytime” program for preschool aged children. However, except for the
countywide ‘summer reading program,’ there is no coordinated interaction between the
libraries and the public school system and their students. Since most of the public
schools do not have adequate libraries/librarians, many students have no experience in
utilizing the library for research or learning.
While it might be easier or less expensive to focus on E-Readers or on-line books, the
advantages of a library with real books and a knowledgeable librarian should not be
underestimated. The county school systems, especially for the primary grades, need to
develop and encourage a strong partnership with our libraries.
Museums:
Lake County has a rich and varied history. Its museums house many treasures
documenting this history. They have knowledgeable staff who devote countless hours
to the preservation of these historical objects. The museums are underutilized by the
community. As with the libraries, limited hours and staff are a key component of this
underutilization. Enhanced support by the County is necessary to ensure these assets
and their benefits to our citizens are maximized.
The museums of Lake County are not just filled with ‘old relics.’ They have exhibits
on the way life used to be a hundred fifty years ago or more, geological surveys of the
county, and items made by our Native American tribes. It is a sad fact that, according
to the museum staff, museums mainly attract people over the age of 50. Younger
people seem to enjoy being able to touch and handle objects (such as arrowheads, rock
samples, feathers from various birds, etc.) They also enjoy interactive games and
storytelling. The development of programs that allow for these “hands on” types of
activities would encourage younger people to visit the museums.
55
ATTACHMENT 1
The Gibson Museum, the Schoolhouse Museum, and the Courthouse Museum can be
important resources to introduce children to our interesting and multi-cultural heritage.
Lake County has the rich history of the Native American tribes, the excitement of the
Gold Rush and American expansion, and the start and growth of the agricultural and
mining industries. Museum exhibits reflect the progress through the last century that
leads us to where we are today. They are the windows to our past.
The Grand Jury specifically recognizes the staff of the museums (who are mostly
part-time – albeit highly educated and experienced – along with some volunteers) for
accomplishing a great deal in making the museums as well run and interesting as they
can be under strict budgetary limitations. New senior management have some exciting
ideas for improvements to the system. However, for them to be successful, adequate
support must be provided.
Summary:
Libraries and museums have long been part of the American educational system.
Now they are both being reevaluated as to the question of their future place in our
rapidly changing social structure. Libraries and museums play a critical role in our
quality of life. We must ensure that they do more than just survive, but also are
provided the resources that will allow them to excel as learning institutions for the
community. Museums and libraries can be welcoming and creative places, so children
and adults can discover and connect to a wider world.
Findings:
F1. The libraries in the County are under-utilized by the County school systems.
Most schools have minimized or eliminated on-site libraries and librarians in favor
of internet accessible computers. The internet does not offer the precision or
definition available from a physical library.
“Google can bring you 100,000 answers. A librarian can bring you the right one.”
Neil Gaiman-English Author
F2. During the January 2018 “Community Visioning Forums” conducted by the
County, support for libraries and museums was among the top areas prioritized by
the attendees.
F3. It is difficult for school systems to arrange for, and finance, student/class trips to
the library.
56
ATTACHMENT 1
F4. Libraries are inadequately staffed and volunteers are needed to help fill the
voids.
F5. Limited library accessibility (hours of operation) hampers usage by students and
working adults.
F6. Several areas of the County (e.g., the communities on the northeast side of the
Lake, Kelseyville, and Cobb Mountain communities) do not have reasonable access
to brick and mortar libraries. Due to the remoteness of several areas of the County, a
bookmobile service targeted at the primary schools (but also available to middle and
high schools) would be a cost effective method of getting library services to the
underserved students.
F7. The museums are using creative ways (e.g., ‘Murder Mystery Dinners’,
Weddings, etc.) that encourage residents to visit the museums, and in the process,
enhance revenue. However, these measures do not address the underutilization of
the museums by children and young adults.
F8. There is inadequate publicity throughout the County on special exhibits and
events offered by the museums.
Recommendations:
R1. The Library System in the County should investigate/recommend a method for
establishing a bookmobile service. The BOS should support options to facilitate this
service. (F1, F3, F6)
R2. If the voters approve an increase to the County sales tax, a portion of this
funding should be earmarked for the libraries. (F2, F4)
R3. The libraries and museums need to expand hours of operation to increase
accessibility and usage. (F5)
R4. Creative and interactive programs should be established to encourage more

participation of young people/students at the museums. (F7)
R5. The libraries and museums need vigorous recruitment of young adults, retired
educators and seniors to serve as volunteer staff. They should be tasked with the
goal of creating programs directed at younger children. (F7)
R6. Increased publicity of Museum events should be funded and enacted. (F8)
57
ATTACHMENT 1
Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R6) (90 days)
Lake County Superintendent of Schools (R6) (60 days)
Director of Lake County Museums (R3, R4, R5) (60 days)
Director of Lake County Libraries (R3, R5) (60 days)
58
ATTACHMENT 1
59
ATTACHMENT 1
Ad Hoc – Insurance
CHAOS AFTER THE FIRES
Lake County Quilt Trail “Fire Sirens”

21095 Highway 175, Middletown, California
60
ATTACHMENT 1
61
ATTACHMENT 1
CHAOS AFTER THE FIRES

Summary:
Lake County Administration lost sight of its need to provide customer service to the
traumatized victims of the Valley Fire who lost everything. Additional training and
preparation in advance of needs stemming from other recent and future fires will
position the County and its citizens to avoid such chaos in the future.
Background and Discussion:
The widely recognized “fog of war” phenomenon after the Valley fire affected both
traumatized citizens and County employees. County employees struggled to learn the
ropes regarding the federal and state laws controlling receipt and processing of disaster
relief funds. During the insurance collection process, the county failed to listen closely
and to hear the victim’s grief and confusion. The county should have been more
professional and respectful towards those needing help. The difference in perception
was significant and dramatic between the citizens seeking guidance and the designated
County staff responding to those needs.
No one in Lake County was unaffected by the Valley Fire in September 2015. The
ferocity of the flames and the totality of the widespread devastation came as a shock to
both residents and government officials. Many first responders and local officials were
themselves directly affected by the fire even as they strove heroically and ceaselessly to
save lives and to provide for the immediate needs of evacuees. After the evacuation
orders were lifted, implementing the cleanup and rebuilding process presented an
abrupt and steep learning curve both for County officials and impacted property
owners.
The federal government through the “Stafford Act” and the State of California have
developed a well-defined process that is implemented in the aftermath of a disaster.
Once a disaster has occurred, and the State has declared a state of emergency, the State
evaluates the recovery capabilities of the State and local governments, which includes
an estimate of available insurance coverage. Joint federal, state, and local government
Preliminary Damage Assessments are conducted to help determine whether a disaster
is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of
the state and affected local governments such that Federal assistance is necessary. If the
State determines that the damage is beyond its recovery capability, the governor sends
a request letter to the President, directed through the Regional Director of the
appropriate Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) region. The President
then makes the decision whether or not to declare a major disaster or emergency.
62
ATTACHMENT 1
After the presidential declaration was made – without hesitation - following the
Valley Fire, FEMA designated the area eligible for assistance and announced the types
of assistance available. FEMA provides supplemental assistance for State and local
government disaster recovery expenses, and the Federal share will always be at least 75
percent of the eligible costs. The Recipient (in this case, the State) determines how the
non-federal share of assistance (up to 25 percent) is split with the sub-recipients (in this
case, Lake County). Lake County was initially responsible for 6.25%, and the State
18.75%, but the State later amended the County’s share to be 0%. As part of its
qualification for Federal and State disaster relief, Lake County must confirm that there
is no “duplication of benefits” - that as much insurance coverage for debris removal as
is available in each property owner’s policy is collected by the County and paid to the
State.
Relevant to this Report is Category A – Public Assistance. Through this program,

FEMA provided supplemental federal disaster grant assistance for residential
“structural” debris removal, which is the subject of this Grand Jury’s inquiry. The
California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) selected the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecyle) (a branch of the California
Environmental Protection Agency that oversees the state's waste management,
recycling, and waste reduction programs) to be in charge of the residential debris
removal for Lake County. CalRecyle then contracted with multiple construction
companies to perform the actual debris removal, which followed an initial removal of
any toxic materials, such as heavy metals, asbestos, inflammable agents, and the like, by
a haz-mat subcontractor. After the removal was complete, the soil was re-sampled for
residual toxins, and erosion control measures were instituted. Environmental Health
was then responsible for “signing off” on each abated property, clearing the way for
rebuilding.
Burned trees considered potentially dangerous to State or County rights-of-way or

utility lines were felled early on by PG&E, CalTrans, and the County. The subcontract
for other residential tree removal was awarded to two subcontractors serially,
beginning in November, 2015.
63
ATTACHMENT 1
Methodology:
The Grand Jury interviewed:
1) Multiple Valley Fire victims and reviewed their documents
2) Department heads dealing with debris removal
3) Multiple County administrative staff responsible for insurance collection, including

the Grand Jury’s perusing relevant spreadsheets and physical files
4) Public and insurance company adjusters
5) A neighboring county official managing a similar program.
Many FEMA, CalOES, CalRecycle , CA Department of Insurance, and public adjuster-

authored documents were reviewed, as were many reports and articles on the Valley
Fire and subsequent major fires, in Lake County and elsewhere.
Findings:
F1. Property owners who chose to have their debris removed by the
State/CalRecycle were asked in October-November, 2015, to sign a Right of Entry
(ROE) prepared by Lake County Environmental Health. This ROE included the
explanation that the amount of insurance coverage provided by their policy for
debris removal would pay for such costs to the limit defined by their policy, and
that they would not be responsible for any additional money.
F2. The language within the ROE was interpreted by many owners as saying that the
debris removal was “free” to them when actually they would be responsible to
reimburse the County for the ‘debris removal’ payments made to the property
owners by their insurance company.
F3. Lake County did not have in effect an executed contract with CalRecyle during
or after the structural debris removal. Absent this contract specifying terms and
conditions, the County had no means of:
a) Requiring CalRecycle to provide documentation of its charges

b) Assuring that CalRecycle responded to property owners’ emails questioning
the charges.
64
ATTACHMENT 1
F4. Although federal monies were available for the County’s collection of insurance
proceeds designated for debris removal – a minimum of $300,000 - and the County
issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) and had initially intended to award the contract
to a third party, the ultimate decision was made to pursue/collect the insurance
proceeds using County administrative staff.
F5. The staffing for this collection program has been inadequate since its inception
both in number and in requisite experience and skills. Early on, only one part-time
employee was assigned to the program. In August 2017, a full-time dedicated
employee was assigned, with the help of an “intern” for the summer and the
assistance of one or two other administrative staff who might answer the phones.
F6. The County did not initially create a duty statement or scope of work for the
person responsible for collecting insurance proceeds for debris removal. Only in
December 2017, were procedures formally created by Administration.
F7. Although the residential debris removal was completed by March 2016,
CalRecycle did not submit its bills to the County until June 2017, and has never
submitted any documentation to support the amount of the bills.
F8. Of the approximately 1200 property owners who signed up for the State removal
of their debris, the County initially had little information as to the amount of
insurance available to the owners.
F9. The County, under the impression that insurance funds would be available to
homeowners for only two years after the fire, hurriedly arranged to distribute the so
called “INVOICE” to property owners in July 2017, during public meetings and via
certified mail.
F10. The breakdown of costs on the “INVOICE” included figures not only for
“debris removal,” but also for non-site-specific services, such as “lot fee” and
“community cost,” for which no explanations were provided.
F11. Some property owners received at the same time a second “INVOICE” for “tree
removal,” in some instances when no trees - or seemingly healthy trees - were
removed, thus compounding their upset. Once again, the figure for non-site-specific
“monitoring costs” on the “INVOICE” was unexplained.
65
ATTACHMENT 1
F12. The ROE specified certified arborist’s reports and property photographs
(before-and-after) hazardous tree removal that were submitted by the tree removal
subcontractor are maintained in another department. These records are separate
from the primary files created by Administration. Thus, these documents are not
available to staff who are attempting to respond to owners’ inquiries.
F13. Some owners who went to – or called - the administrative office to vent their
frustration over the “INVOICE” felt ignored by the response to their inquiry or
complaint. Callers rarely spoke with an employee. Instead, they were automatically
re-routed to voicemail. This was at the direction of senior administration
management.
F14. Despite having been informed on several occasions that they were responsible
to pay only the allotted insurance coverage for debris removal, many property
owners were confused, anguished, and angered by their “INVOICE”, which they
interpreted to be demanding payment for the full amount listed, which averaged
approximately $100,000.
F15. When owners, a number of whom were present during the debris removal,
requested supporting documentation for the billed amounts, the County stated that
it passed on the requests to CalRecyle, with no response.
F16. Some owners whose rebuilding monies were distributed to them by their
insurance carriers had not been informed that the debris removal coverage was
included therein. They then spent the money without paying the debris-removal
portion to the County. The County is slowly attempting to work out a repayment
program for these owners.
F17. Approaching three years after the Valley Fire, the County still does not have the
proof of “no insurance” from all of the owners so indicating.
F18. To-date, three letters with copies of the “INVOICE” have been send out to
property owners who have not yet paid the County their insurance proceeds for
debris removal. Several owners have reported they were threatened verbally with
being sent to collections, despite administrative denial of anyone doing so. When the
specific amount owed is unknown thereby excluding external collections, how the
County will force owners to pay is unclear.
66
ATTACHMENT 1
F19. Property owners affected by the Clayton Fire, who have received insurance
proceeds for debris removal that they want to pay to the County, now are unable to
do so for lack of a dedicated database created to document/track such payments for
the Clayton Fire.
F20. Part of the reason for the delay in collecting insurance proceeds was linked to
the prolonged delay in issuing building permits by The Department of Community
Development, as insurers often retained rebuilding payments until a permit was
issued.
Recommendations:
R1. The County should amend the Right-of-Entry form to clarify the meaning of “no
out-of-pocket cost” to the property owners and should avoid use of the term “free”
on any official handouts. [F-1, F-14]
R2. Prior to inevitable future fire emergencies, and such as was done in Calaveras
County following the Butte Fire, the County should consider appointing one person
to interact with the public and to be the centralized repository of disaster-response
information. [F-5, F-10, F-13, F-14]
R3. County personnel must be mindful of their “customer service” responsibilities

when dealing with its stressed citizens. These attitudes and practices flow down
from Administration and the department heads. Initial or additional “customer
service” training by professionals should be implemented as necessary and should
be heartily supported by management. [F-5, F-13]
R4. In the immediate aftermath of a disastrous fire, Administration should

proactively work with the property owners to ascertain their specific insurance
coverage for debris removal. [F-8, F-16, F-17, F-18]
*****Special Notation: The Grand Jury has become aware that, after months of
investigation into this area, the staff of County Administration has reached out to
other counties – now with continuing follow-through- on proactively dealing
with this area. The Grand Jury applauds actions done in reaction to the obvious
focus of its investigations instead of only following issuance of its final report.
Whatever stimulus initiates the beneficial change/action is helpful to all the
people of our communities.
67
ATTACHMENT 1
R5. The County should avoid using the term “INVOICE” on the insurance-collection
paperwork distributed to property owners. [F-10, F-11, F-14]
R6. The County should rework its insurance-collection documents so that the first
page of the “billing” portions reflect the actual insurance coverage for that specific
property owner and thus the amount actually due to the County. [F-10, F-14]
R7. County administrative personnel should actively seek out training regarding
State and Federal regulations pertaining to debris removal prior to beginning the
insurance collection process. [F-6, F-9, F-16]
R8. All administrative staff dealing with the public in the aftermath of a disaster
should be cross-trained in the basics of State and Federal post-fire regulations as
well as in Lake County post-fire insurance administrative procedures to provide
backup continuity. [F-9, F-12, F-15, F-16, F-17]
R9. A dedicated phone line for debris removal insurance coverage queries should be
instituted before collection procedures begin for the Clayton, Sulphur, and any
future fires. [F-5, F-13, F-14, F-15]
R10. The preliminary message on that dedicated line should include words to the
effect of “We have placed answers to many common questions on the Lake County
OES website and we encourage you to peruse that site at “(County to develop a new
web site location – specific to the fire/insurance issues).” This message should
precede the caller’s transfer to the responsible County person assigned to that
dedicated line. [F-13]
R11. The County should strive always to have a person answering the dedicated
phone line during business hours. Calls being forwarded from the public to
Voicemail during business hours should be done only as a backup procedure and
not as a primary means of communication. Procedures should be developed and
implemented to assure that callers’ queries are addressed in a timely manner. [F-13,
F-15]
R12. The contract between the County and CalRecycle must specify the terms of
payment of insurance proceeds to the State and reimbursement to the County for its
insurance-collection costs. [F-2, F-3]
R13. The County should develop, approve, print, and adhere to specific procedures
under which any delinquent property owners are to be sent to “collections.” These
procedures should accompany early communications regarding insurance
reimbursement. [F-18]
68
ATTACHMENT 1
R14. As an example of proactive management, the best interest of its citizens would
be served by the County’s establishing the working databases now for property
owners affected by the Clayton and Sulphur fires. [F-19]
R15. Any residual Valley Fire-related information and documents from other
departments should be integrated into the databases and files created and
maintained by Administration. [F-12]
Board of Supervisors: R-12 (90 days)
The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond.
Chief Administrative Officer: R1 through R-15 (60 days)
Environmental Health Director: R-1, R-15 (60days)
69
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibits
Exhibit A
70
ATTACHMENT 1
71
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit B
72
ATTACHMENT 1
73
ATTACHMENT 1
74
ATTACHMENT 1
75
ATTACHMENT 1
76
ATTACHMENT 1
77
ATTACHMENT 1
78
ATTACHMENT 1
79
ATTACHMENT 1
80
ATTACHMENT 1
81
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit C
82
ATTACHMENT 1
83
ATTACHMENT 1
84
ATTACHMENT 1
85
ATTACHMENT 1
86
ATTACHMENT 1
87
ATTACHMENT 1
88
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit D
89
ATTACHMENT 1
90
ATTACHMENT 1
91
ATTACHMENT 1
92
ATTACHMENT 1
93
ATTACHMENT 1
94
ATTACHMENT 1
95
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit E
96
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit F
97
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit G
98
ATTACHMENT 1
99
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit H
100
ATTACHMENT 1
101
ATTACHMENT 1
102
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit I
103
ATTACHMENT 1
104
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit J
105
ATTACHMENT 1
106
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit K
107
ATTACHMENT 1
108
ATTACHMENT 1
109
ATTACHMENT 1
110
ATTACHMENT 1
111
ATTACHMENT 1
Ad Hoc 3 – EOP
Lake County Quilt Trail “KFD (Kelseyville Fire Protection District)”

4020 Main Street, Kelseyville, California
112
ATTACHMENT 1
113
ATTACHMENT 1
GO JUMP IN THE LAKE:

The County’s Emergency Operations Plan In the Event of a Wildfire
Summary:
The 2017 update of the 1996 Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was presented to the
Lake Council Disaster Council (Disaster Council) for discussion and to the Board of
Supervisors (BOS) for final approval. The EOP lacks specificity in regards to emergency
warnings, evacuations, education, and training. The goal of effective disaster planning
requires coordination across not only all levels of the County government horizontally,
but also vertically with non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and
individuals and families. Coordination with Lakeport and Clearlake city officials or
outreach to other groups, organizations, and residents is not apparent in the EOP.
As well, the Sheriff’s Department is tasked with developing and implementing the
EOP. Emergency preparedness, however, is not solely a law enforcement function. The
responsibility for comprehensive emergency planning has been shifted back and forth
between the Sheriff’s Office and County Administration. This shift has resulted in
compromise of a unified government-community emergency response that is based on
consultation and coordination.
The disaster preparedness for Lake County and the two incorporated cities needs to
ensure that residents have reliable notification of impending disasters. This entails a
broad set of human and technologic networks to disperse real-time information and
instructions. Residents also need a well-defined set of evacuation route alternatives that
are available and understood, especially in the demographically dense areas.
Lastly, residents of the County themselves have a critical role and shared
responsibility to take recommended actions to protect themselves, their families, and
their properties before and during a disaster. Following major disasters, first responders
– impacted by numerous victims, communication infrastructure failures, and blocked
roadways – will not always be able to meet the residents’ immediate needs for the
emergency services they have come to expect. Therefore, an individual’s actions will
determine whether one will be able to react appropriately in an emergency, receive
timely warnings, and evacuate safely. All of this requires thorough education and
training of County residents, which is inadequate.
114
ATTACHMENT 1
Background
In response to the Oakland Hills fire in October 1991 – and its call for effective
coordination among emergency responders – Governor Wilson signed into law in 1993
the requirement for the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) to develop a
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). In 1995, all counties, including
Lake, were required to organize into Operational Areas. All state and local government
agencies must use SEMS during multi-jurisdictional or multi-agency emergency
responses in order to be eligible for state reimbursement of response-related costs.
As many different agencies must work together effectively to protect lives and
property during disasters, in 2005, California integrated its SEMS with the National
Incident Management System (NIMS). This was to ensure that emergency response
agencies to have a clear and consistent organizational structure within which to operate.
Most counties in the state, including Lake, have accredited Disaster Councils. The
Lake County Disaster Council is charged with providing guidance and recommending
priorities for the Office of Emergency Services (OES), which is a unit of the Sheriff’s
Office. Additionally, the Disaster Council reviews and provides feedback for disaster
and mitigation plans created by OES. Grand Jury members, officially
identified, attended meetings of the County of Lake Disaster Council, including
meetings of the council to garner input during the Emergency Operations Plan
development process. During those meetings county officials did not encourage
participation by entities outside state, county and city governments. The county Office
of Emergency Services (OES) indicated to the Grand Jury that it did not have the time to
include outside organizations in the planning process, particularly in the development
of Annexes. Two city administrators and one county official indicated to the Grand
Jury that they had difficulty inputting ideas and recommendations to the EOS. Several
members of non-governmental organizations indicated to the Grand Jury that their
input to the planning process had not been encouraged or well received when offered.
The focus of this Grand Jury report is the 2017-18 EOP drafted by the OES that is
intended to update the 1996 Plan that is currently in effect.
115
ATTACHMENT 1
Methodology:
The Grand Jury reviewed the draft EOP and Annexes; interviewed multiple County,
State, City, and Hidden Valley Lake Association public safety personnel; attended
Disaster Council meetings; and attended the Cobb Safe 2018 workshop. The Grand Jury
also reviewed numerous educational materials provided by the California Department
of Forestry & Fire Protection (CalFire), Cal OES, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), and the Fire Safe Councils. Extensive media reports following the
three 2015 fires in Lake County, the 2016 Clayton Fire, and 2017 Wine Country Fires,
which included the Sulphur Fire, were reviewed. The Grand Jury also interviewed
survivors of these fires.
Discussion:
Lake County Sheriff’s Office/Office of Emergency Services
Four overlapping aspects of emergency management are required of the County:

Preparedness, Response, Recovery, and Mitigation (entailing pre-disaster prevention
and protection). Only the first two categories will be addressed in this report –
Preparedness and Response - and a section on Education and Training is added.
A. Preparedness
Under the aegis of the Office of Emergency Services (OES), a unit of the Sheriff’s
Office, EOP development, training, and exercises before the next disaster is well
underway. The mission statement of Lake County’s OES is:
“Our mission is to protect the persons, property and environment of Lake

County in the event of an emergency through planning, training and
coordination with responders, local government, and community stakeholders.
Lake OES is committed to providing effective emergency services in a forward-
thinking and cost-effective manner.”
116
ATTACHMENT 1
Update of the 1996 EOP is almost complete. The EOP is extensive and well thought-
out, considering almost every conceivable natural and man-made emergency that might
occur in its Operational Area. OES has been working with County staff to ensure that
the necessary procedures and command structure are in place and functional. Tabletop
and field exercises will be conducted.
Annexes
Separate sections of the EOP – entitled Annexes - focus on operations that describe
the function and what governmental agency is responsible for carrying it out. Annexes
emphasize responsibilities, tasks, and actions that pertain to the specific function being
addressed, hence the term “functional annex.” The Annexes describe the policies,
procedures, roles, and responsibilities inherent in each function before, during, and
after an emergency.
The FEMA guidelines specify generic “core functions” that generally require an
Annex. The Lake County Draft EOP includes 16 separate annexes that include both
functions and particular geographically-relevant hazards that are likely to occur. Figure
1, below, lists the FEMA-recommended Annexes and the relevant corresponding Lake
County Annexes, which include hazard-specific sections.
FIGURE 1
FEMA LAKE COUNTY

Direction & Control Notification
Law Enforcement/Civil Unrest
Communications Notification
Communications Failure
Warning Notification
Communications Failure
External Affairs/Emergency Public Communications Failure
Information
Population Protection Law Enforcement/Civil Unrest
Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Mass Fatalities Incident
Housing & Human Services Mass Care & Shelter
Public Health & Medical Services Public Health & Medical Services
Logistics Management & Resource Mutual Aid
Support
Access & Functional Needs
Homeland Security
117
ATTACHMENT 1
(Weapons of Mass Destruction)

Earthquake
Wildland Fire
Extreme Weather
Hazardous Materials
Dam Failure
Energy Shortage
Debris Management
What appears to be missing from the EOP and its Annexes is coordination with local
city administrations, community businesses and organizations. This lack of
coordination diminishes the community’s expectations that its members share
responsibility to plan realistically for themselves, their families, and their community
groups. An effective preparedness plan both structures pre-disaster thinking and it also
encourages individual creativity and initiative in the face of an unfolding disaster.
Also essential to effective planning is incorporation of persons with special needs

and individuals with limited English proficiency, as well as the agencies and
community organizations that support those individuals. Although one of the County
EOP’s Functional Annexes describes the special considerations involved in dealing with
home- or institution-bound Access & Functional Needs (AFN) persons, the Annex does
not identify where the responsibility lies or what actions should be taken. In fact,
emergency service personnel indicated that identification of this vulnerable population
is precluded by federal HIPAA privacy regulations. Nonetheless, there are reasonable
methods working within the federal guidelines to acquire this information.
Apparent to the Grand Jury is the need of the County to qualify for federal disaster
funding by generating an EOP. That view is shared by an official in an active
community organization, who opined:
“My sense, having scanned the current DRAFT EOP, is that this effort is VERY
much driven by the requirement to have the plan at least in place to be
eligible for FEMA funding and LESS a fully considered and locally tailored and
detailed plan. The plan is strong on higher level organizational detail (necessary
but not sufficient) and weak on local specificity.” [Emphasis in the original
document]”
118
ATTACHMENT 1
B. Response
Response to an unfolding disaster, however, is where the rubber meets the road.
This report focuses on the adequacy of warnings and the conduct of evacuations, which
technically are the responsibility of the Sheriff’s Office. Because each individual
neighborhood is unique, emergency response must be tailored to its distinct
circumstances and requirements. (See, Exhibit A)
1. Warnings
Across the country, emergency managers wrestle with how to effectively and
efficiently advise and mobilize the public in an emergency. The available warnings in
Lake County include two free opt-in systems (for which individuals must register
ahead of time) – NIXLE and CodeRed (soon to be replaced by an Everbridge system).
With both, emergency and advisory text and voicemail alerts are sent by police, fire,
and emergency management to cell and landline phones and emails and are also
distributed to social media networks. The alerts are intended to communicate the nature
of the emergency and the recommended response. CodeRed also delivers alerts to cell
phones, but, in contrast to NIXLE, can target all phones that are present within a
specified geographic area, whether one is a resident of that area or not.
The second category of alerts - Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) are made
available through the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS)
infrastructure. These alerts are another way public safety officials can quickly warn the
public about serious emergencies. Individuals need not register for these alerts. WEAs
can be sent by state and local public safety officials, the National Weather Service, the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the President of the United
States. While they look like text messages, they are designed to get one’s attention with
a unique sound and vibration, both repeated twice. The message includes the type and
time of the alert, any action persons should take, as well as identify the agency issuing
the alert.
2. Sirens
During many emergencies, however, communication infrastructure relying on
electricity is damaged or destroyed, making the above alerts useless. Following the
Valley Fire in 2015, in which lack of warnings and guidance were the rule, several
communities [Hidden Valley Lake, Cobb, Loch Lomond, Anderson Springs, and
Middletown] have opted to install or repair sirens equipped with battery backup,
making them effective even if the electric grid fails. Siren manufacturers can predict the
coverage of their warning wails (See, Exhibit B). While not indicating the specific nature
of the emergency, sirens are intended to alert people to seek additional information. The
119
ATTACHMENT 1
Lake County EOP includes no reference to sirens or to the need for training as to how to
access further instructions after the alert sounds.
Several specialists in warning systems have expressed the view that sirens are too
non-specific to be effective and are too costly to purchase and install. As well, they can
be hacked, as just recently occurred in Dallas. Nonetheless, the Grand Jury believes that
employment of all available warning systems should be encouraged and that, with
proper education of residents, siren systems can be effective as an initial warning.
3. Ham Radios
Amateur radio operators – or “hams” – who are highly trained and licensed - can
provide a method of communication during emergencies that can augment official
communications. During emergencies, using battery- or generator-powered equipment,
hams often provide essential communications services when regular channels are
unavailable. Following the Wine Country Fires in 2017, much attention has been given
to county government’s failure to provide effective warnings so that residents could
prepare and evacuate safely.
In Sonoma County last October, a “fire net” of hams established themselves
early-on and were able to relay first-hand observations, information from first-
responders, and their own NIXLE and other emergency notifications. After the
evacuations, the hams provided communications at shelters, police departments, and
the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), as well as at other locations such as hospitals.
Ham radios offer numerous emergency backup capabilities:
1) Federal communications law permits them to operate on official frequencies
during a disaster or widespread emergency;
2) Numerous fixed ham sites operate in virtually every area of the County;
3) More than 100 mobile ham radio systems are located in adapted vehicles
around the County; and
4) The critical ham radio repeaters are already in place and cover the populated
areas of the County. In addition, there is an active ham radio club that can offer
free training for new hams and that are highly motivated to assist in
emergencies. Fees and starting equipment for new ham operators can be covered
for less than $100.
The Grand Jury has learned that although various officials stated that they were
already working with the ham networks, the ham club and multiple persons with ham
equipment indicated that their attempted outreach to County emergency personnel had
been consistently ignored.
120
ATTACHMENT 1
4. Evacuations
As each individual neighborhood should be considered separately, no single set
of governmentally-developed evacuation instructions is universally applicable in Lake
County. (See, Exhibit B, Residential Areas.) Wildfires can come from any direction – or
from several directions – any time of the day or night. Residents need to inform
themselves about potential escape routes from their neighborhoods and, most of all,
must be flexible and able to respond depending on the circumstances. (See, Exhibits C1-
C7, Evacuation Route Maps)
Sheriff’s Office personnel are resistant to suggesting evacuation routes for fear of
being sued if injuries to persons or property result. However, if the fear of being sued
drives governmental decisions, what becomes clear is that any decision raising a
potential or actual legal risk can be too easily ignored. The lack of advice on best routes
of egress places residents in potential peril if they choose a road that is overrun with
flames or that interferes with firefighting activities. [The title of this report, in fact,
comes directly from a conversation one grand juror had with a public safety official
about evacuation routes from the Riviera communities along Soda Bay Road. The
response was, “If I were you, I’d go jump in the Lake.”]
Evacuation preparation and implementation are inadequately addressed in the

EOP. Therefore, developing feasible evacuation plans falls to residents and community
groups, primarily neighborhood and homeowners’ associations. As one example, the
Hidden Valley Lake Association has identified evacuation routes and has made printed
brochures available to its residents that diagram such routes. (See, Exhibit D)
5. Block Captain/Neighborhood Watch Programs

Another example of local activism would be the Neighborhood Watch and Block
Captain programs that traditionally involve citizens in efforts to prevent crime in their
neighborhood or community. As well, these groups of citizens can and do provide
emergency support services involving communication of alerts and guidance in a
disaster. Block or street captains are selected and trained to serve as liaisons between
their neighborhoods and local public safety officials. Working through identified Block
Captains, who are intimately familiar with the residents in their neighborhood and who
maintain current telephone trees, government agencies can communicate vital
information to County residents.
One significant advantage of the Block Captain program is the captains’

knowledge of the location and needs of AFN persons and others needing special
121
ATTACHMENT 1
assistance that then can be provided to first responders. In addition, the captains would
know which properties are unoccupied, thus enabling more efficient distribution of
emergency information. Through the creation of hierarchical communication systems,
such as phone trees, and the development of neighborhood maps, early warnings can
be communicated rapidly and evacuation routes identified. During widespread
disasters when reliance on technology is problematic, this neighborhood-level
organization can be instrumental in communicating potentially life-saving information
to Lake County residents.
Lake County OES personnel could reliably augment the provision of emergency
support services by promoting and utilizing Block Captain programs. Such programs
are suggested for designated residential areas in the County and incorporated cities that
are illustrated in Exhibit A. A single Block Captain can efficiently contact many
households. If a calculation of 200 persons per Block Captain in denser populations is
assumed, approximately 25 could cover the city of Lakeport and 65 could cover the city
of Clearlake. If OES emergency managers were provided with updated contact
information for these Block Captains, then NIXLE, Code Red, and WEA alerts could be
utilized for their mass notification. Each Block Captain would then pass on the alerts to
their network.
Each of these Block Captains could be equipped with a hand-held short-range

receiver to facilitate delivery of specific information and directives from official
emergency personnel that can be quickly disseminated to the households in their
designated “block” area. Individual receivers can be purchased for less than $30, or
even lower if bought in bulk.
C. Education and Training

All adults in the County with the potential to be affected during a wildfire
emergency have the responsibility to plan and prepare in order to keep themselves and
their families safe. Therefore, education and training are critical components that will
help determine their actions during an emergency. Governmental agencies can play a
crucial role in providing informative materials and sponsoring programs that residents
can use to plan and prepare. CalFire, as one example, prints and distributes many
excellent disaster-preparation and response brochures. Additional videos are available
on the CalFire website. The National Fire Protection Association also provides
educational materials on its website. Lake County additionally has two Fire Safe
Councils that are committed to reducing fire hazards and to actively promoting
“Firewise” community actions. (See, Exhibit E, Firewise Benefits)
122
ATTACHMENT 1
The County EOP fails to address the role of government agencies and
departments in the disaster-preparedness education and training of citizens and
community groups. Nor in the Annexes is there any direction regarding the education
and training of County employees, despite the fact that all employees are automatically
designated “emergency workers” during a disaster.
CERT Training
One example of a grassroots education and training initiative tailored to the

specific needs of communities is FEMA’s Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT) program. (See Exhibit F, CERT Program) This program educates volunteers
about disaster preparedness for the hazards that may impact their area and trains them
in basic disaster response skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, team
organization, and disaster medical operations. CERT offers a consistent, nationwide
approach to volunteer training and organization that professional first responders can
rely on during disaster situations, allowing them to focus on more complex tasks.
Through hands-on practice and realistic exercises, CERT members:
 Learn how to safely respond to manmade and natural hazards.

 Help organize basic disaster response.
 Promote preparedness by hosting and participating in community disaster-prep
events.
The CERT Basic Course is delivered in the community by a team of first responders
or other qualified volunteers. The training is often broken up into two to four hour
blocks over a series of evenings or weekends.
Management of Emergency Operations
It appears to the Grand Jury that delegation of the County’s emergency

operations to the Sheriff’s Office is administratively unworkable and leads to
ineffectiveness.
First, the line of command and management oversight for emergency planning
and response runs through the Sheriff, an independently elected County official. The
Sheriff has no authority over either County managers or agencies who report to the BOS
or over State agencies such as CalFire. Emergency management officials indicate that
they have had problems with coordination and cooperation with certain County
officials, which has impeded their finalizing emergency planning and execution.
123
ATTACHMENT 1
Second, the Sheriff is primarily responsible for law enforcement, which includes
ensuring the safety of residents. However, wildfire emergencies entail much more than
law enforcement functions. During an emergency, the Sheriff’s Office personnel are too
fully engaged in managing safety issues to be responsible for the County’s overall
emergency response.
Third, with current staffing levels, the Sheriff has inadequate manpower to
supervise and execute his office’s law enforcement duties, let alone the bandwidth to
manage all of the complexities of wildfire preparedness and response.
The Grand Jury suggests that the overall management of emergency planning
and response would more effectively be conducted under the supervision of the County
Administrative Officer, who has control over more of the responding agencies and
departments and thus has the authority to supervise and manage them during
emergencies.(See Exhibit G, Defining Our Roles)
Findings:
F1. The County of Lake OES has drafted a thorough and exemplary body of work in
planning how governmental agencies in the County should prepare for handling
emergencies. This planning is evident in the EOP, which was approved by the Board of
Supervisors in May 2018. The incorporated cities, Clearlake and Lakeport, have their
own Emergency Operations Plans. These civic plans are not included in the county
EOP.
F2. OES did not actively involve residents and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) and community groups in the development of the EOP and apparently had no
plans to involve them in the execution of the EOP.
F3. Although the EOP addresses Unified Command in case of an emergency, not all
county governmental agencies report through a unified command structure. In an
actual wildfire emergency, particularly one spanning multiple jurisdictions, lack of a
pre-established unified command structure could result in confusion,
miscommunication, and inaction, thus jeopardizing lives.
F4. Issues with Unified Command, operation of the Emergency Operations Center
(EOC), and establishment of the Incident Command System (ICS) could arise within
implementation of the EOP. Although the Plan clearly states the purposes and
characteristics of these entities, it does not spell out how these entities will be
established and coordinated in an actual emergency. The various agencies that respond
to fires have already established command protocols that have proved effective and that
124
ATTACHMENT 1
offer an Incident Command System in addressing fire emergencies. Absent such clear
direction for many agencies that normally operate independently and report through
disparate management authority, confusion and even disagreement as to who is in
command in an emergency and what should be done is likely.
F5. Assignment of authority and responsibility over implementation of the OES to the
Lake County Sheriff’s Office is problematic. As noted in the Discussion above, there are
three reasons why this assignment may not work:
a. The primary focus of the Sheriff’s Office is law enforcement. Emergency response
is not purely a law enforcement function and includes many disparate agencies
working in concert. General organizational principles would suggest that overall
command should be given to the agency with the broadest responsibility. In this
case, that would be the Board of Supervisors and the two city Councils.
b. Currently, the OES reports to the County Sheriff, who does not report to the BOS.
Thus, the line of management authority from BOS to OES is broken and may not
function well. The Sheriff does command necessary functions in an emergency,
but does not exert either wide authority within County government or any
authority within cities and outside agencies.
c. The Sheriff’s Office has clearly expressed that it does not have the administrative
manpower to adequately manage and supervise both law enforcement functions
and emergency planning and operations. In an emergency, this lack of trained
and seasoned manpower to manage an emergency could significantly impair
necessary actions.
F6. Agencies responsible for emergency services acknowledge that planning and
execution related to emergencies can only be effective if it includes both governmental
and non-governmental community groups. However, the OES has done little work in
helping residents and community groups to prepare for and handle emergencies. In
fact, the OES has, in some cases, discouraged active participation by residents and
groups, such as homeowner’s associations and amateur radio (ham) operators.
F7. County governmental agency plans and programs for educating and training
residents and community groups in how to operate in an emergency are inadequate or
non-existent. CalFire does publish and distribute detailed guides on how to plan for
and respond to wildfire emergencies. No such informational program exists in the
County or city governments.
125
ATTACHMENT 1
F8. The plans, programs, and systems for warning residents and community
organizations of impending or ongoing emergencies have often proved inadequate. In
recent wildfire disasters in 2017, technology-based warning systems were ineffective in
alerting the majority of residents.
F9. More traditional warning systems, namely sirens, have proved effective in alerting
residents to impending or actual emergencies. Such systems are particularly effective
when they are protected against electric outages with battery backup. Though such
systems do not indicate the nature of the emergency, they are effective in alerting
people to actively seek information. Coupled with systems to promulgate emergency
information, such warning systems have proved very effective. Hidden Valley Lake
community already has an effective siren system in place and operating. The
Middletown and Cobb areas have recently installed siren-warning systems.
F10. Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) has already proved its efficacy
in educating residents and neighborhoods in preparing for and responding to
emergencies. A community action group in Spring Valley, during several recent
wildfires, employed CERT training that included self-directed wildfire response. This
successful reaction proves the effectiveness of educating and training neighborhoods in
emergency preparedness. The Cobb area residents are currently exploring emergency
response training. Efforts by other neighborhood groups to obtain CERT training in
other locations over the years have been met with apathy by responsible County
officials. Some individuals/groups had to obtain training in other counties, such as
Mendocino, Napa, Yolo and Marin.
F11. OES has no plans to promote or assist neighborhoods in preparations for obtaining
information in emergencies. Of critical importance, in safeguarding residents and
community organizations in an anticipated or ongoing emergency, is the ability to
deliver accurate and timely information. This is particularly critical in following up a
general warning signal, such as a siren or electronic warning. Programs for
communicating with residents and community groups in the EOP are inadequate.
Effective plans for follow-up of an emergency alert can be implemented through pre-
organized non-governmental entities, such as, for example, homeowner’s associations,
CERT teams, and Block Captain/Neighborhood Watch programs.
F12. OES plans, programs, guides, and training for evacuation in case of an emergency
are inadequate or non-existent. In fact, the Sheriff’s Department has made it clear that it
cannot advise residents in establishing evacuation routes or evacuation protocols in
case of an impending or ongoing emergency. Such lack of pre-planning could prove
fatal in an emergency.
126
ATTACHMENT 1
F13. Although the EOP includes recognition of the need for plans and programs to
evacuate AFN persons in case of an impending or ongoing emergency, actual plans are
inadequate or non-existent.
F14: Amateur Radio (Ham) represents a non-governmental communication resource

that has been instrumental in the past in providing critical support in emergencies.
Hams are specially trained in radio operations and use equipment that is less subject to
inoperability due to electrical failures. Hams are committed and highly motivated to
provide communication services to Lake County during emergencies. OES has in its
plans to include a manned Ham station in the EOC that is being remodeled.
F15: OES personnel indicate that the current location of the OEC is in a radio
transmission “blind spot” that would preclude effective transmission of radio signals.
Recommendations:
R1. Regarding Unified Command, the BOS and the Lake County Sheriff should
immediately reconsider where to assign overall authority and responsibility for
implementation of the OEP. Considerations should be based on what management
configuration could most effectively implement all aspects of the Plan. The BOS should
not assign authority and responsibility to the Sheriff’s Office simply because it provides
the EOC and is responsible for emergency notifications and evacuations. (F3, F4, F5)
R2. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should direct the OES to negotiate a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each of the responsible governmental
organizations named in the EOP. These MOUs should establish the areas of
responsibility and authority and the specific actions each organization is to take in the
advent of a wildfire emergency. (F3, F4, F5)
R3. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should require the OES to develop a plan
and negotiate a MOU with each of the incorporated cities as to how the EOC will be
manned and managed in an emergency, especially in one crossing jurisdictional
boundaries. This plan should include how to establish authority within the EOC
initially and how to alter authority as the incident unfolds. (F3, F4)
127
ATTACHMENT 1
R4. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should require OES to plan with
community groups, such as, for example, homeowner’s associations and HAM radio
operators, as to how the groups will interface with governmental agencies and operate
in an emergency. Such negotiated planning should consider the unique nature of
individual neighborhoods and include in the planning neighborhood organizations.
(F5, F6)
R5. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, must develop plans and programs for
educating residents and non-governmental organizations as to how to respond in the
event of a possible or ongoing emergency. Two models would be the materials available
through CalFire and the Hidden Valley Lake Association. (F6, F7, F10, F11)
R6. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, must develop and implement plans and
programs for warning residents and non-governmental organizations of an anticipated
or ongoing emergency. The Sheriff must consider that more technical and electrically
dependent emergency alert systems may not work in an actual wildfire emergency.
Emergency planners should develop and implement more traditional methods of
warning, such as sirens with battery backup and block captain systems, tailored to
conditions in specific neighborhoods. (F6, F8, F9, F10)
R7. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, and the cities must develop plans and
programs for evacuating residents, particularly AFN persons, in case of an anticipated
or ongoing emergency. Plans should concentrate on NGOs that house numerous
persons that cannot provide for their own evacuation, such as nursery schools and
nursing homes. (F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F12, F13)
R8. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should investigate the issue of effective
evacuation from neighborhoods, particularly where egress is limited, such as Anderson
Springs and Spring Valley, for example. The Sheriff should develop a program to
inform residents and community groups of evacuation protocols and routes. The
Sheriff should consider the development of a book of maps showing evacuation routes
from neighborhoods, using as models the map book produced by CalFire (Lake County
First Responders Map Book) and the evacuation route map created by the Hidden
Valley Lake Association and provided to its residents. (Exhibit D) (F6, F7, F8, F9, F10,
F12, F13)
R9: The OES should consider how to coordinate with the Lake County Amateur Radio
Society (LCARS) and should develop a MOU clarifying LCARS’ role in providing vital
communication during an emergency. (F14, F15)
128
ATTACHMENT 1
R10: OES should take advantage of the technical expertise of Hams in configuring the
proposed OEC antenna to best effect radio transmissions. (F14, F15)
Request for responses:
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933(c), the following responses are required:
Board of Supervisors (R1, R2, R3, R6, R8) (90 days)
Lake County Sheriff’s Office (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10) (60 days)
City Manager of Lakeport (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9) (60 days)
City Manager of Clearlake (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9) (60 days)
The Grand Jury invites the following agencies to respond:
California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (R5, R6)
Hidden Valley Lake Association Security Services (R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
Cobb Area Council (R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
Lake County Amateur Radio Society (R4, R9, R10)
129
ATTACHMENT 1
130
ATTACHMENT 1
131
ATTACHMENT 1
132
ATTACHMENT 1
133
ATTACHMENT 1
134
ATTACHMENT 1
135
ATTACHMENT 1
136
ATTACHMENT 1
137
ATTACHMENT 1
138
ATTACHMENT 1
139
ATTACHMENT 1
140
ATTACHMENT 1
141
ATTACHMENT 1
142
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit H
143
ATTACHMENT 1
Ad Hoc – Making Connections
Lake County Quilt Trail “Our Town”

4025 Main Street, Kelseyville, California
144
ATTACHMENT 1
145
ATTACHMENT 1
Making Connections
Summary:
There are many ‘needs’ throughout our County and within the incorporated city
governments and operating departments. There are many people and groups outside
of governance who are willing to help or ease those needs. No method has been
established to identify those needs and match them to those who can help. The lack of
being able to make such connections limits the various governments from providing
better and broader services to their citizens. A specific and designated method or
person to facilitate making connections would be of great benefit to many.
Discussion:
In January, senior County officials and administration held a series of “Community

Visioning Forums.” These invited any interested citizens to proffer ideas for making
improvements to the County. In retrospect, after watching how the forums were
‘interpreted,’ it was raised as a concern to the Grand Jury by many county residents that
the major purpose of these meetings was to put in place the justifications for proposal of
a new countywide sales tax. This fell short of the ideal of actually soliciting innovative
‘community visioning’ from citizens as it had been advertised.
At the time of writing this report, it is not yet clear if the tax proposal will, or will
not, be on the ballot. If it is on the June ballot, it may, or may not, have been approved
by the voters.
However, for the large number of citizens who took their time and attention, who
attended and spoke, and who expected that their input would be at least given some
consideration, the misuse of these forums was a great disservice. For those who
attended some or all of the meetings, the public input fell into four broad categories.
There were those who just wanted to complain about some portion of the county
governance or another. (This is sadly true in virtually every public meeting even when
it is not part of the stated goals). There were some who put forth ideas that were of
exceptionally limited appeal and may not have been of interest to more than the
smallest handful of our citizens. (When looking at ‘what could be’ it would always be
expected that some of these will arise.) There were more than several who brought up
questions and issues surrounding the newly emerging cannabis issues. (These are
coming up in almost every county across the state.) But, importantly, there were
portions of the inputs/suggestions that were well thought out, based on obvious needs,
146
ATTACHMENT 1
of importance to a broad portion of the County, and often contained suggested

solutions to the problem as part of the comments.
No formal response mechanism for these valuable inputs/suggestions, in which

the public can see that the entities who staged the forums are responsive, has become
apparent. Only the manipulation of the forums in support of the proposed tax measure
has been given much attention.
There were enough valuable suggestions made to warrant some evaluation,

response, or action from the County or incorporated cities.
Findings:
F1. There are numerous groups, organizations, government departments or

individuals throughout the County and incorporated cities in need of support or
assistance that cannot be obtained under current staffing or budgeting limitations.
F2. There are groups and individuals throughout the county who have capabilities,
time, and assets that they are willing to contribute to the betterment of specific areas or
departments within the County or the incorporated cities.
F3. There is no individual or department within the various governances that

focuses on bringing together needs with offerings.
F4. Many citizens report that attempts by them to approach members of governance
throughout the county with offerings of capabilities or assistance have either been
overtly ignored or outright rebuffed.
F5. There will never be an expected ‘every issue will have a solution.’ It is a certainty
that some issues/possible solutions may face insurmountable regulatory or procedural
obstacles. Some offered assistance will be deemed inadequate for the designated
problem. There may be so many ‘need’ issues that priorities may have to be set which
then cannot address every one of them even if an asset/capability is available. Such
situations are inevitable, but should not derail the enactment of a formal procedure. We
should not let striving for ‘perfect’ to deter putting in place the ‘good’.
F6. At the time of the Community Visioning Forums it was stated by County officials
that no multi-year budgetary forecast (revenues and expenditures) existed. In the
interim, a 10 year ‘vision’ has been announced by County Officials, but it lacks
projected budgetary numerical variations due to tax revisions, disaster funding, or
other realistically potential areas that can affect the budget. These permutations are
normally of important interest to anyone doing due diligence on relocating to, or
investing in, a new economic or commercial venture.
147
ATTACHMENT 1
Recommendations:
R1. The County should establish a specific individual to facilitate ‘making

connections.’ This should not be limited to volunteering strictly to support County
governmental needs. They should have the responsibility of seeking out areas of
organizational or capability needs, and then matching them to the willing and offered
citizens or organizations that can assist in those needs. This function should include
active outreach specific to these goals across the county in: area councils, citizen groups,
NGO’s, service organizations. Included should be any internal governance
requests/needs for voluntary support identified via existing departmental reporting
structures throughout the County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
R2. The County should develop a multi-year financial outlook (five years minimum,
ten years preferred) based on current tax/cost/revenue understandings, but should
also include potential variations that would alter the forecast in consideration of
significant changes (such as tax increases). (Reference main county website under
administration/forums/forum videos/South County Forum – timestamp 1:28:45 to
1:30:40) (F6)
R3. Clearlake Animal Control (or the Clearlake City Manager’s office) should access
the posted videos (on the main county website under administration/forums/forum
videos/South County Forum between timestamps 1:05:00 and 1:15:00). Contact should
be initiated with the citizen offering to foster multiple dogs (and neighbors of the
speaker who also are willing to foster multiple animals) with the intent to establish such
service. (F1, F2)
R4. The County should review main county website (under

administration/forums/forum videos/Lakeport Forum timestamp 1:24:00 to 1:25:00)
and develop/enhance the grant writing effort and utilize volunteer help where it has
been offered. An offer made during the Community Visioning Forums by an individual
(ostensibly) experienced in this field to perform the service on a “no cost basis” to the
county. This offer was not pursued or investigated. In the time since the forums, a paid
County grant writer has been installed instead (F1, F2)
R5. The Senior Centers in Middletown, Lakeport, Lucerne, and Clearlake Oaks
should establish contact with the Clearlake Children’s Museum of Arts and Sciences
(CMAS). This is program (NOT limited to children) that is already providing ‘no
cost’/low cost art instruction at the Clearlake Senior Center. Contact is to determine if
their volunteer service would be of interest/use to those other senior centers. (F1, F2).
148
ATTACHMENT 1
Board of Supervisors, County Administrator (R1, R4)(90 days)
County Administration (R2, R4) (60 days)
City of Clearlake City Council (R3) (90 days)
Clearlake Animal Control Department (R3) (60 days)
Director of Middletown Senior Center (R5) (60 days)
Director of Lakeport Senior Center (R5) (60 days)
Director of Lucerne Senior Center (R5) (60 days)
Director of Clearlake Oaks Senior Center (R5) (60 days)
149
ATTACHMENT 1
Grand Jury Appendix
150
ATTACHMENT 1
151
ATTACHMENT 1
152
ATTACHMENT 1
Grand Jury Complaint Form
153
ATTACHMENT 1
Lake County Quilt Trail “Sail Away”

1860 High Street, Lakeport, California
154
ATTACHMENT 2
Over 100 years of community

pride, progress and service.
July 24, 2018

P.O. Box 1078
RE: 2018 Grand Jury Report
Dear Judge Blum,
The City of Lakeport respectfully responds to the 2018 Grand Jury Report to the items listed for
the City of Lakeport’s response.
In response to “Poor Student Attendance Costs Lake County Public Schools,”
R2. The Lake County Office of Education, school districts and the county and city
governments should establish early childhood education opportunities for children ages
3-5. Appropriate government departments in the incorporated cities and in the County
should be directed to identify such available public structures (in their respective
jurisdictions) that could be modified to function as workable preschools. Active efforts to
identify any state or federal or private funding sources for the modifications and ongoing
operation of such preschools should be established.
The City of Lakeport works closely with the Lakeport Unified School District. We have partnered
in grants in the past for school resource officer and currently there is a Lakeport Police resource
officer assigned to the school district during school hours and sporting events. The City has
worked with and encourages community daycare. We have not received any requests from the
school district to help sponsor grants for pre-schools. The City has adequate land designated
appropriately throughout the city for daycare use. If the opportunity arises and school district
needs support from the City for an application we will work with the school district.
In response to “go Jump in the Lake”
R1. Regarding Unified Command, the BOS and the Lake County Sheriff should
immediately reconsider where to assign overall authority and responsibility for
implementation of the OEP. Considerations should be based on what management
configuration could most effectively implement all aspects of the Plan. The BOS should
not assign authority and responsibility to the Sheriff's Office simply because it provides
the EOC and is responsible for emergency notifications and evacuations.
The City does not have a position on where the EOC resides, as long as we maintain
representation on the disaster Council.
225 PARKSTREET•LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA 95453•TELEPHONE (707) 263-5615•FAX (707) 263-8584

ATTACHMENT 2
R2. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should direct the OES to negotiate a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each of the responsible governmental
organizations named in the EOP. These MOUs should establish the areas of
responsibility and authority and the specific actions each organization is to take in the
advent of a wildfire emergency.
The Cities and the County have a law enforcement MOU, we don’t have other formal MOU’s for
disaster events, though the City is committed to work with the County and Clearlake to assist in
any disaster, as they have been there to assist us. It could be helpful to have a more
comprehensive MOU with all agencies in the County who are emergency responders.
R3. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should require the OES to develop a plan and
negotiate a MOU with each of the incorporated cities as to how the EOC will be manned
and managed in an emergency, especially in one crossing jurisdictional boundaries. This
plan should include how to establish authority within the EOC initially and how to alter
authority as the incident unfolds. County and representatives from both cities do meet for
preparedness before storm events and before fire season. We do believe an emergency
management training with OES held in the County with participation from all three entities would
be helpful.
R5. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, must develop plans and programs for
educating residents and non-governmental organizations as to how to respond in the
event of a possible or ongoing emergency. Two models would be the materials available
through CalFire and the Hidden Valley Lake Association.
The City of Lakeport agrees to the premise that additional community outreach is always
beneficial.
R6. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, must develop and implement plans and
programs for warning residents and non-governmental organizations of an anticipated or
ongoing emergency. The Sheriff must consider that more technical and electrically
dependent emergency alert systems may not work in an actual wildfire emergency.
Emergency planners should develop and implement more traditional methods of warning,
such as sirens with battery backup and block captain systems, tailored to conditions in
specific neighborhoods.
The City of Lakeport agrees it’s beneficial to explore additional alert systems, although the City
and County have worked very close in all previous disasters in contacting residents.
R7. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, and the cities must develop plans and
programs for evacuating residents, particularly AFN persons, in case of an anticipated or
ongoing emergency. Plans should concentrate on NGOs that house numerous persons
that cannot provide for their own evacuation, such as nursery schools and nursing
homes.
The City of Lakeport is in the process of updating our EOP to address contacts in the evacuation
areas that need any special assistance, however the city is aware of facilities that need special
evacuation assistance and have made direct contact with those facilities and residents.

ATTACHMENT 2
R8. The Sheriff, with current responsibility, should investigate the issue of effective
evacuation from neighborhoods, particularly where egress is limited, such as Anderson
Springs and Spring Valley, for example. The Sheriff should develop a program to inform
residents and community groups of evacuation protocols and routes. The Sheriff should
consider the development of a book of maps showing evacuation routes from
neighborhoods, using as models the map book produced by CalFire (Lake County First
Responders Map Book) and the evacuation route map created by the Hidden Valley Lake
Association and provided to its residents. (Exhibit D)
Any advanced planning is always prudent and the City of Lakeport is planning on updating the
City’s EOP in this fiscal year. City staff is not involved in the planning for evacuation protocols
and routes in county jurisdiction. .
R9. The OES should consider how to coordinate with the Lake County Amateur Radio
Society (LCARS) and should develop a MOU clarifying LCARS' role in providing vital
communication during an emergency.
No comment.
R10. OES should take advantage of the technical expertise of Hams in configuring the
proposed OEC antenna to best effect radio transmissions.
No comment.
Sincerely,
Margaret Silveira
City Manager
cc: City of Lakeport City Council

ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF LAKEPORT
Community Development Department
225 PARK STREET TELEPHONE 707.263.5615 x201

LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA 95453 FAX 707.263.8584
E-MAIL [email protected]
August 29, 2018

P.O. Box 1078
RE: 2018 Grand Jury Report—Lakeport Community Development Department Response
Dear Judge Blum,
The City of Lakeport Community Development Department respectfully offers the following invited responses
to the “Where’s My Building Permit?” section of the 2018 Grand Jury Report:
R3. The Community Development Department should be prepared to streamline their processes in an
emergency. (F1)
The Community Development Department of the City of Lakeport is committed to the timely processing of all
development permit applications regardless of the existence of an emergency situation. The City of Lakeport
maintains a contract with a private building services firm to assist in plan check operations during periods of
higher service demands and for the review of more complicated development applications.
It should be further noted, that although the processing and issuance of permits is coordinated by the
respective Community Development Department in which development is occurring, many other local, state
and federal agencies of which the Community Development Department has no administrative authority over
are involved and must sign off on many building development permit applications. These agencies often
include but are not limited to: local fire agencies, water and wastewater purveyors, roads division, health
department, local and state water resource agencies, air quality management district, etc. As such any effort
to streamline building permit processes needs to be much broader than just the reform of Community
Development Department processes.
R5. Establish yearly Countywide Community Development/Building Inspection Department meetings to

include the representatives from the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake Building and Planning Departments.
(F8)
Prior to the onset of the recession in the mid- to late-2000s representatives of the Community Development
Departments from all three jurisdictions would occasionally meet to discuss common issues and best practices.
However, given budget constraints and staff turnover these meetings have ceased over the past several years.
Restarting these meetings to better coordinate and respond to common issues that each entity is facing is
certainly a good practice that should be resumed.
Despite the lack of formal meetings, staff representatives do meet frequently to discuss issues that arise.
Although I am only able to speak on behalf of the City of Lakeport, the statement made in this section of the
2018 Grand Jury report noting that cities were not contacted by the Lake County Community Development
ATTACHMENT 3
2018 Grand Jury City of Lakeport Community Development Department Response 08/29/2018
Department is incorrect. Lakeport Community Development Department staff directly assisted in the County’s
Emergency Operations Center during both the Rocky and Jerusalem fire events. City of Lakeport Building
Division staff assisted in the damage assessment inspections following the Rocky, Jerusalem and Valley fire
incidents. Additionally, Lakeport Building Division staff also assisted in general permit inspection services
within the unincorporated areas following both the Valley and Clayton fire incidents so that County of Lake
Building Division staff could focus efforts on the completion of damage assessment reporting. During each
disaster of the past few years (wildland fire and flood related) staff from the City of Lakeport and County of
Lake Community Development Departments have been in direct communication with each other and offered
assistance where possible.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kevin M. Ingram
Community Development Director
cc: City of Lakeport City Council
2
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority Joint Powers MEETING DATE: 09/04/2018
Agreement Amendment Adding Fifth Voting Member
Kevin M. Ingram, Community Development Director
SUBMITTED BY:

The City Council is being requested to review and approve an amendment to the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement
(AVA) Service Authority Joint Powers Agreement between the County of Lake and cities of Lakeport and
Clearlake adding a fifth (5) voting member.
California Vehicle Code Section 22710 permits Cities and Counties to establish a service authority for management
and oversight of the County’s AVA program. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) includes a $1
fee to all registered vehicles in the County which goes towards the removal of qualified abandoned and nuisance
vehicles in the County.
The current AVA Service Authority Joint Powers Agreement provides for four (4) voting members. Two (2)
members of the Lake County Board of Supervisors; One (1) City Council member each from the Cities of Lakeport
and Clearlake. At the June 20, 2018 AVA Service Authority meeting, members unanimously made a
recommendation to County and two Cities that the current Joint Powers Agreement be amended to include a fifth
voting member to the committee in order to assist in the establishment of a quorum. This fifth voting member
would be an ‘at-large member’ appointed by the other members of the AVA Service Authority.
The Lake County Board of Supervisors took action on said proposed amendments at their regular meeting of
August 7, 2018 and have forwarded the amended Joint Powers Agreement to the Cities of Lakeport and Clearlake
for action.
OPTIONS:
1. Adopt the recommended amendment to the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority Joint Powers
Agreement.
2. Direct staff to make modifications or revisions to the recommended amendment to the Abandoned Vehicle
Abatement Service Authority Joint Powers Agreement.
3. Take no action or take action to deny the recommended amendment to the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement
Service Authority Joint Powers Agreement. Alternatively, the City Council could provide other direction.
Meeting Date: 09/04/2018 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.E.

FISCAL IMPACT:
None $ Budgeted Item? Yes No
Budget Adjustment Needed? Yes No If yes, amount of appropriation increase: $
Affected fund(s): General Fund Water OM Fund Sewer OM Fund Other:
Fiscal Analysis: Not applicable.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to adopt the proposed amendment to the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority Joint Exercise
of Powers Agreement to add a fifth voting member selected at large by the Service Authority.
Attachments: 1. Amended AVA Service Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
Meeting Date: 09/04/2018 Page 2 Agenda Item #IV.E.

ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
Proclamation
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT
WHEREAS, Gerald (Gerry) Mills dedicated 20 years to the Lakeport Fire Protection District as
a member of the District’s Board of Directors since 1998; and
WHEREAS, Gerry Mills began his career in public service in the California Highway Patrol,
ultimately serving as Captain/Commander in the Clear Lake Area Office and subsequently the Eureka
Office, ultimately retiring after 31 years of service and returning to Lakeport whereupon he was
appointed as a Fire Commissioner to the Lakeport County Fire Protection District ; and
WHEREAS, Gerry Mills has made numerous contributions to the Lakeport County Fire
Protection District as a Commissioner and, as of the 2002 annexation of the Lakeport Fire
Department, as a Director on the Board of the Lakeport Fire Protection District; and
WHEREAS, Gerry Mills’ tenure on the Board saw the consolidation of the District formation,
including annexation to form the for the District, the District’s assumption of responsibility for
ambulance services in the District when the previously contracted private ambulance company
ceased serving Lake County, the appointment of two Fire Chiefs, Chief Wells and Chief Hutchison ;
and
WHEREAS, Gerry Mills has served his community as a past member of Rotary International
and a current member of the Elks Club, as well as serving on the Board of Directors of Lake LAFCo;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lakeport does hereby
recognize and thank
GERALD (GERRY) MILLS

for his dedication to the Lakeport Fire Protection District and the citizens of the City of
Lakeport and wishes him well in his retirement from the Board of Directors of the District.
I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Lakeport to be affixed this 4th
day of September, 2018.
_________________________________
MIREYA TURNER, Mayor
Proclamation
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT
WHEREAS, The Lakeport Fire Department was formed in 1894 to provide fire protection to the City of
Lakeport, and subsequently merged with Lakeport County Fire Protection District to form the current Lakeport Fire
Protection District; and
WHEREAS, The Mission of the Lakeport Fire Protection District is to be a leader in Emergency Services
delivery by providing: Fire Prevention and Educational Outreach and All Hazards Response including Fire
Suppression, Advanced Life Support Emergency Medical Services, Emergency & Non-Emergency Ambulance
Transports, Hazardous Materials Response, and Technical Rescue; and
WHEREAS, on July 27th 2018 the Mendocino Fire Complex, made up of the River and Ranch Fires, broke out,
ultimately resulting in mass evacuations throughout the County of Lake, including the City of Lakeport ; and
WHEREAS, the Lakeport Fire Protection District staff of professionals and volunteers were called upon to
stay to fight the River Fire while their own families were evacuated and their homes unprotected ; and
WHEREAS, the District provided updates and daily briefings to disseminate accurate and timely information
to City officials, despite other calls on the District’s time and resources; and
WHEREAS, the firefighters of the District battled tirelessly in the field to hold the River Fire west of Highway
29, ultimately preventing any loss of homes or businesses in the City limits;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lakeport does hereby recognize and
thank
LAKEPORT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

for their unwavering courage and professionalism in the face of a deadly threat to both the City and County
residents.
I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Lakeport to be affixed this 4th day of
September, 2018.
_________________________________
MIREYA TURNER, Mayor
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: ADA Grievance Policy MEETING DATE: 09/04/2018
SUBMITTED BY: Kelly Buendia, Administrative Services Director

The City Council is being asked to consider a Resolution authorizing and approving the City of Lakeport’s: 1) Notice
under the Americans with Disabilities Act; 2) Grievance Procedure under the Americans with Disabilities Act; and
3) Designation of the Administrative Services Director as the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) Coordinator
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in Title II prohibits discrimination by state or local governments
against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs or activities.
Pursuant to the administrative requirements of Title II of the ADA the agencies with more 50 or more employees
are required to:
• Adopt and distribute a public notice about the relevant provisions of the ADA to all persons who may be
interested in its programs, activities, and services;
• Develop and publish grievance procedures to provide fair and prompt resolution of complaints under
Title II of the ADA at the local level; and
• Designate at least one employee responsible for coordinating compliance with the ADA and
investigating ADA complaints. Staff recommends designating the Administrative Services Director as the
ADA Coordinator.
At this time the City of Lakeport is very close to the 50 employee threshold, and therefore it is prudent to adhere
to the higher standard imposed on larger agencies.
Attached to this staff report is the City of Lakeport Notice and Grievance Procedure in compliance with Title II of
the ADA. Staff recommends the Council adopt the Notice and Grievance Procedure and designate the
Administrative Services Director as the ADA Coordinator by resolution.
OPTIONS:
Adopt the proposed resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Meeting Date: 09/04/2018 Page 1 Agenda Item #VI.A.1.
Comments:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to adopt the proposed resolution adopting a Grievance Procedure under the American Disabilities Act,
Notice under the Act, and designate the Administrative Services Director as the ADA Coordinator.
Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution

2. Notice
3. Grievance Policy
Meeting Date: 09/04/2018 Page 2 Agenda Item #VI.A.1.

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. __(2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT

AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE CITY OF LAKEPORT: 1)
NOTICE UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT; 2)
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT; AND 3) DESIGNATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AS THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT (“ADA”) COORDINATOR
WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in Title II prohibits discrimination by
state or local governments against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in
its services, programs or activities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the administrative requirements of Title II of the ADA the City is required
to adopt and distribute a public notice about the relevant provisions of the ADA; develop and publish
grievance procedures; and designate at least one employee responsible for coordinating compliance
with the ADA and investigating ADA complaints; and
WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the City of Lakeport Notice and Grievance
Procedure in compliance with Title II of the ADA attached as Exhibit A and designate the Human
Resources Director as the ADA Coordinator.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lakeport hereby authorize and approve the City of Lakeport
Notice Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Grievance Procedure under the Americans with
Disabilities Act attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference and designates the
Administrative Services Director as the ADA Coordinator.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify adoption of the resolution.
SECTION 3. This Resolution is effective upon its adoption.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 4th day of September, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: ________________________________
MIREYA G. TURNER, Mayor
______________________________
KELLY BUENDIA, City Clerk
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 2 EXHIBIT A
NOTICE UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(“ADA”), the City of Lakeport will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on
the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities.
Employment: The City of Lakeport does not discriminate on the basis of disability in its hiring or
employment practices and complies with all regulations promulgated by the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission under Title I of the ADA.
Effective Communication: The City of Lakeport will generally, upon request, provide appropriate
aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities so they
can participate equally in the City of Lakeport’s programs, services, and activities, including
qualified sign language interpreters, documents in Braille, and other ways of making information and
communications accessible to people who have speech, hearing or vision impairments.
Modifications to Policies and Procedures: The City of Lakeport will make all reasonable
modifications to policies and programs to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal
opportunity to enjoy all of its programs, services and activities. For example, individuals with service
animals are welcomed in the City of Lakeport offices, even where pets are generally prohibited.
Anyone who requires an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or a modification of
policies or procedures to participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Lakeport, should
contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 707-263-5615 x101 or [email protected] as soon
as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event.
The ADA does not require the City of Lakeport to take any action that would fundamentally alter the
nature of its programs or series, or impose an undue financial or administrative burden.
Complaints that a program, service or activity of the City of Lakeport is not accessible to persons
with disabilities should be directed to the ADA Coordinator at 707-263-5615 x101 or
[email protected].
The City of Lakeport will not place a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any
group of individuals with disabilities to cover the cost of providing auxiliary aids/services or
reasonable modifications of policy, such as retrieving items from locations that are open to the public
but are not accessible to persons who use wheelchairs.
CITY OF LAKEPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS
OF DISABILITY
Adopted ________, 2018
I. Purpose
The purpose of this procedure is to provide a formalized process for elimination and
resolution of any discrimination or exclusion from City services of people who are
disabled.
II. Scope
It may be used by anyone who wishes to file a complaint alleging discrimination on the
basis of disability in the provision of services, activities, programs, or benefits by the City
of Lakeport. The City’s Personnel Policy governs employment related complaints of
disability discrimination.
III. Policy
The City will not unlawfully discriminate against an individual or group of individuals on
the basis of disability in providing and administrating services, programs, or activities. All
eligibility standards, rules, or requirements that unnecessarily screen out individuals
with disabilities will be eliminated. Physical barriers which bar or impede access to City
programs, activities, or services will be identified and steps to eliminate the situation
will be taken to ensure programs are accessible when viewed in their entirety. The City
will review its policies and practices to ensure means of communication are effective
with applicants, participants, and members of the public.
IV. Procedure
1. The complaint should be in writing and contain information about the alleged
discrimination such as name, address, phone number of complainant and location,
date, and description of the problem. Alternative means of filing complaints, such as
personal interviews or a tape recording of the complaint, will be made available for
persons with disabilities upon request.
2. The Complaint should be submitted by the grievant and/or his/her designee as soon
as possible but no later than 60 calendar days after the alleged violation to:
Page 1
Kelly Buendia
ADA Coordinator and Administrative Service Director
225 Park Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
3. If a complaint is regarding building or facility inaccessibility, within five business

days, the ADA Coordinator will forward the complaint to the City of Lakeport
Building Division for investigation and will formally acknowledge receipt of the
complaint to the complainant.
4. For all other complaints or grievances, within ten business days after receipt of the
complaint, the ADA Coordinator or designee will contact the complainant to discuss
the complaint and the possible resolutions. Within 30 days of the contact, the ADA
Coordinator or designee will respond in writing and, where appropriate, in an
alternative format accessible to the complainant.
The response will explain the position of the City of Lakeport and offer options for
substantive and reasonable resolution of the complaint or grievance.
5. If the response by the ADA Coordinator does not satisfactorily resolve the issue, the
decision may be appealed to the City Manager or his/her designee within 30
calendar days following receipt of the response.
6. Within ten business days after receipt of an appeal, the City Manager or his/her
designee will contact the complainant to discuss the complaint or grievance and
possible resolutions. Within 15 business days of this contact, the City Manager will
respond in writing and, where appropriate, in a reasonable format accessible to the
complainant, with a final resolution of the complaint or grievance.
Every reasonable attempt will be made by the City of Lakeport to remedy the disability
complaints or grievances in a timely manner subject to staff and budget constraints.
If any Title 24 Building Code or ADA complaint or grievance resides under the
jurisdiction of another public entity, the complainant will be notified that the City of
Lakeport lacks jurisdiction and will be referred to the appropriate jurisdiction.
Page 2
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Industrial Financing Authority
STAFF REPORT
RE: John Deere 210L Loader Purchase MEETING DATE: 09/04/2018
SUBMITTED BY: Douglas Grider, Public Works Director

The City Council is being asked to authorize the City Manager to sign a purchase agreement required for the
purchase of a new John Deere 210L Loader
The City of Lakeport Public Works Department currently utilizes a 1987 Case Backhoe. It has become apparent
that Public Works needs a new Loader in order to meet the rising demand for utilities, roadway, paving and
other projects. The requested Loader will also meet all of the current State of California CARB rules.
Appropriations were approved for this purchase in the current fiscal year budget in the amount of $120,000
from General Fund, Water and Sewer. As Public Works began the construction season the current Case backhoe
began having mechanical issues. In order to keep up with an aggressive Utilities and Public Works projects
schedule Public Works rented a John Deere 210L Loader until a new Loader could be purchased. Staff was very
satisfied with the Loaders performance and operation. The Public Works Director worked with PAPE’
MACHINERY, Inc. to secure a government pricing program to ensure the best possible government pricing for
this purchase and also secured a 100% roll over of the rental cost for an additional savings of $9000.00 bringing
the total cost to $88,427.75. The pricing program is through the NJPA (National Joint Powers Alliance) which
uses a bidding process like US Community’s and GSA. The NJPA Contract Number is 032515-JDC
OPTIONS:
Move to authorize the purchases of a John Deere 201L Loader; or provide alternative direction to staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None $88,427.75 Budgeted Item? Yes No
Budget Adjustment Needed? Yes No If yes, amount of appropriation increase:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to authorize the City Manager to sign the associated purchase order and purchase agreement for a John
Deere 210L Skip Loader
1. Sales Order
Attachments:
Meeting Date: 9/4/2018 Page 1 Agenda Item #VI.B.1.

2-1700 E (12/07)
SALES Page 1 of 2 Init.

ORDER REFERENCE
NUMBER
BILL TO SIC Code SHIP TO Name
Buyer City of Lakeport Address
Address 225 Park Street City State Zip
City Lakeport State CA Zip 95453 County:
County Lake Customer No. Delivery Date (Est.) Customer No.
Ph. No. Fax No. P.O. NO.
MODEL TRANSACTION INVENTORY
EQUIPMENT MAKE John Deere 210L EQUIP. #
SALE RPO NEW USED RENT
SER. # 1T8210LXAJF894872 ✔ ✔
Description: John Deere 210L with 1.25 CY 4 in 1 Bucket, 88" Box Scraper with twin tilts $ $86,500.00
4 x 4 Drive with driveline guard, wheel weights and Hitch Weights, 36/3000 hr PTH Warranty 3,900.00
Ride Control
Less 3 month Rental -9,000.00
Attachments: RPO Terms: $3000 per month + TAX. 100% of Rental to apply to purchase for 4 months.
After 4 months a service charge of 1/2% of the Sales Price will be deducted from the amount to apply to
purchase on a declining balance
Del’y/F.O.B $ AGREED
$81,400.00
TRADE YEAR SERIAL # PRICE $
If Tax Exempt, Provide Certificate
MAKE MODEL or enter Rate Below
Sales Tax ( 8.63 %) $7,020.75
Lienholder: Total Price $ 88,420.75
Trade In Allowance ► Less (Est.) Payoff ► ► Net Trade-In < $0.00 >
BILL OF SALE: FOR TRADE-IN DESCRIBED HEREIN. WE CERTIFY THAT THERE IS NO LIEN, CLAIM, Sales Tax (WA Only)
DEBT, MORTGAGE OR ENCUMBRANCE OF ANY KIND, NATURE OR DESCRIPTION AGAINST THIS ( %) $0.00
PROPERTY NOW EXISTING, OF RECORD OR OTHERWISE AND THAT SAME IS FREE AND CLEAR AND
IS MY/OUR SOLE AND ABSOLUTE PROPERTY EXCEPT AS NOTED ABOVE. CA Tire Fee $ $7.00
BUYER’S SIGNATURE: X Balance Due $ 88,427.75
FINANCE FINANCED ON ACCOUNT CASH/COD Down Payment < >

TERMS (SUBJECT TO APPROVAL): Doc Fees
INSURANCE
Amount to Finance
Insurance Agent: Length of Term
NEW BASIC Est. PMT. W/Ins.

(DESCRIBE)
WARRANTY NEW EXTENDED Est. PMT. W/O Ins.

(DESCRIBE)
AS IS / NO WARRANTY USED
(DESCRIBE)
This Sales Order is subject to additional terms and conditions on the reverse side of this document. The undersigned Buyer agrees that it has read and understands the terms and conditions,
warranty disclaimers, and limitations of liability set out in the additional terms and conditions on the reverse side of this document and that the same are included in and are part of this Sales
Order as if set forth on the face hereof.
PAPÉ MACHINERY, Inc. BUYER
(Store Address) 5380 Commerce Blvd By Title
City Rohnert Park State CA Zip 94928
By Robert Crottogini By Title
Title Date 06/05/2018 Date 06/05/18
Notice: When operated in California, any off-road diesel vehicle may be subject to the California Air Resources Board In-Use Off-road Diesel Vehicle Regulation.
It therefore could be subject to retrofit or accelerated turnover requirements to reduce emissions of air pollutants. For more information, please visit the
California Air Resources Board website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/ordiesel.htm.
2-1700 E (12/07)
Page 2 of 2 Init.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE: Sales Orders are based on 7. Assignment. The right to any monies due or to become due
the terms and conditions stated herein. Unless otherwise provided on hereunder may be assigned by Seller, and Buyer, upon receiving
the face hereof, offers are good for acceptance for a period of 30 days notice of such assignment, shall make payment as directed.
from the date hereof. An order by the Buyer shall constitute an
acceptance of the terms and conditions herein proposed. If, and only 8. Limitations of Warranties. If "NEW" warranty is indicated on the
if, no offer of sale is issued by Seller, then the invoice shall be reverse side or if new equipment is purchased hereunder, all
deemed: an acceptance of the Buyer's order; a written confirmation; warranties are strictly given only by the manufacturer. Copies of
and a final, complete, and exclusive written expression of the manufacturer's warranty can be obtained from Seller. If "USED"
agreement between Seller and Buyer. Buyer is hereby notified that warranty is indicated on the reverse side. Seller hereby warrants to
additional or different terms from those contained herein are Buyer that the equipment or components thereof designated on the
objectionable. reverse side, shall be free under normal use and service from
defects in material and workmanship for the period shown,
1. Taxes. Buyer shall pay all local, state, and federal taxes arising commencing on the date of delivery. Buyer's exclusive remedy for
from or related to any sale or lease to which this document relates, breach of the limited warranty shall be the repair or replacement of
except for taxes upon or measured by net income of Seller. the warranted equipment without charge to Buyer when returned at
Buyer's expense to the Seller's facility where the equipment was
2. Delivery. Stated or promised delivery dates are estimates only purchased, with proof of purchase. Buyer must give notice of any
based upon Seller's best judgment and Seller shall not be responsible warranty claim not later than 7 days after the expiration of the
for deliveries later than promised regardless of the cause. Delivery warranty period and must return the equipment to Seller for repair or
periods are projected from the date of receipt of any order by Seller, replacement no later than 30 days after expiration of the warranty
but if equipment to be furnished by Seller is to be manufactured period. Any action against Seller for breach of the limited warranty
specifically to fill a particular order, delivery periods will be projected must be commenced within one year after the date of delivery of the
from the date of Seller's receipt of complete manufacturing equipment. Seller's warranty does not extend to any defect, claim, or
information. If the furnishing of equipment on orders accepted by damage attributable to the failure to operate and/or maintain the
Seller is hindered or prevented by public authority or by the existence equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, or
of war or other contingencies, including, but not limited to, shortage of due to the failure to operate or maintain the equipment in accordance
materials, fires, labor difficulties, accidents, delays in manufacture or with any recommendations of Seller. If "AS IS" is indicated on the
transportation, acts of God, embargoes, inability to ship, inability to reverse side, no warranty of any kind is being given and the
insure against war risks or substantially increased prices or freight equipment is being sold with all faults. THE WARRANTIES IN THIS
rates, or other causes beyond Seller's control, the obligation to fill or PARAGRAPH AND ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE THE
complete such orders shall be excused by Seller's option. EXCLUSIVE WARRANTIES GIVEN BY SELLER AND SUPERSEDE
3. Transportation and Claims. Prices quoted are net F.O.B. point ANY PRIOR. CONTRARY, OR ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS,
designated in writing by Seller. When no F.O.B. point is designated in WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN. SELLER HEREBY DISCLAIMS
writing by Seller, prices for new equipment shall be deemed to be net AND EXCLUDES ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, WHETHER
F.O.B. point of manufacture and prices for all other equipment shall be EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED
deemed to be F.O.B. Seller's place of business at which the order for WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
the equipment is accepted. When transportation is allowed, the price PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
charged will be adjusted to reflect the lowest transportation rates in OTHERWISE ARISING FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE
effect at the time of shipment even though such rates may differ from OF TRADE. SELLER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS,
those quoted by Seller. Seller's responsibility for the equipment shall INJURY, OR DAMAGE TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY
cease and all risk of loss shall become the Buyer's upon delivery of the RESULTING FROM THE FAILURE OR DEFECTIVE OPERATION
equipment to the first carrier for shipment to the Buyer or his OF THE EQUIPMENT; NOR WILL SELLER BE LIABLE FOR
consignee, even though such delivery shall be made prior to the arrival DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR
of the equipment at the F.O.B. point designated, and any and all CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND SUSTAINED FROM
claims for shortages, deliveries, damages or non-delivery must be ANY CAUSE. This exclusion applies regardless of whether such
made by the Buyer or his consignee to the carrier. Seller shall in no damages are sought for breach of warranty, breach of contract,
event be responsible for shortages in shipments unless notice of such negligence, or strict liability in tort or under any other legal theory.
shortage is given in writing to Seller within 15 days after receipt of 9. Rental Purchase Option. If rental purchase option (RPO) is
shipment. granted in any addendum, the purchase price shall be tendered to
4. Payment and Security. Buyer agrees to pay in full for the Seller coincidentally with the exercise of the purchase option
equipment at time of delivery. Buyer agrees to pay the late charge on provided that Buyer is not then in default in performing all of the
any past due balance at the rate of 18% per annum. The signator terms and conditions of lease with Seller.
warrants that he/she has authority to execute this order on behalf of 10. Notice. This paragraph shall serve as notice that The Papé
any party for whom he/she signs, and that such party has the power to Group, Inc. has assigned its rights to sell its rental equipment (as
enter into this agreement and perform its terms. As security for all of may be described in this sales order) and its rights to sales proceeds
Buyer's obligations to Seller, Buyer grants to Seller a security interest (including "trade-in assets" related thereto) to North Star Deferred
in the equipment and authorizes Seller to file all documents necessary Exchange as part of an IRC Sec. 1031 exchange.
to perfect Seller's security interest. The security interest granted
hereunder is in addition to any other rights available to Seller, and 11. Attorneys Fees. In the event suit or action is instituted against
Seller shall have all of the rights and remedies available to a secured Buyer on account of or in connection with or based upon the terms
party under the Uniform Commercial Code, all of which are hereof, the Buyer agrees to pay, in addition to the costs and
cumulative. Throughout the duration of Seller's security interest. Buyer disbursements provided by law, such sum as the court may adjudge
shall keep the equipment fully insured against theft and loss or reasonable attorney's fees in both the trial and appellate courts, or in
damage by fire and other casualty as Seller may from time to time connection with any bankruptcy proceeding.
require in accordance with such terms as Seller may require.
12. Entire Agreement. The foregoing and any addendum shall
5. Buyer to Furnish. Performance by Seller is subject to the Buyer constitute the complete and exclusive agreement between the
furnishing a satisfactory credit rating certificate, letter of credit, parties, and it is expressly understood and agreed that no promises,
evidence of financing, or any other similar papers necessary for the provisions, terms, warranties, conditions, guarantees, or obligations
satisfactory completion of such order. whatsoever, either expressed or implied, other than as herein set
forth or provided for shall be binding on either party. Each party may
6. Laws Governing. All orders will be governed by the laws of the transmit its signature by facsimile to the other party and such
State of Oregon. facsimile signatures shall have the same force and effect as an
original signature.
RENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Lessee must check engine oil, water and fuel daily. Lessee is responsible for all tire maintenance, fuel, missing parts and all damage other than normal wear. Any damage to this Equipment resulting from improper care will
be charged directly to Lessee. The Contract shall extend beyond the term at the same terms if Lessee holds the Equipment over the specified term of Contract.
1. Equipment Location. The Equipment will be delivered to and used at the listed address unless otherwise noted on the front of this Contract and shall not be moved to another location without consent.
2. Tires. All damage to tracks, tires, and tubes caused by blow-out, bruises, cuts, road hazards and other causes inherent to the use of the Equipment is the responsibility of the Lessee.
3. Theft. Lessee is responsible for the theft of the Equipment, until Lessor takes possession of the Equipment.
4. Malfunctioning Equipment. Should the Equipment become unsafe, malfunction or require repair, Lessee shall immediately cease using such Equipment and immediately notify the Lessor. If such condition is the
result of normal operation, Lessor will repair or replace the Equipment with similar Equipment in working order if such replacement Equipment is available. Lessor has no obligation to replace Equipment rendered
inoperable by misuse, abuse or neglect.
5. Past Due Accounts. Interest on all past due amounts shall accrue at the lesser of: (a) 1.5% per month, or (b) the highest rate permitted by law.
6. Deposit. Lessee acknowledges that one of the purposes and intents of the deposit, if a deposit is requested, is to secure and guarantee complete performance of Lessee’s obligations under the Contract.
7. Possession/Title. Lessee’s right to possession of the Equipment terminates on the return date indicated on the front of this Contract or upon termination of this Contract, whichever occurs first. Retention of possession
after this date constitutes a material breach of this Contract. Time is of the essence of this Contract. Any extension of this Contract must be agreed upon in writ ing. Title to the Equipment is and shall remain in Lessor. If
the Equipment is not returned and/or is levied upon for any reason whatsoever, Lessor may terminate this Contract without further notice, retake said items without further notice or legal process and use whatever force
is reasonably necessary to do so. Lessee hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold Lessor harmless from any and all claims and costs arising from such retaking. If Equipment is levied upon, Lessee shall notify
Lessor immediately.
8. Receipt/Inspection of Equipment. Lessee hires the Equipment on an “AS IS” basis. Lessee acknowledges that it has personally inspected the Equipment prior to its leaving Lessor (regardless of point of delivery) and
finds it suitable for its needs. Lessee acknowledges receipt of all items listed in this Contract in good working order and repair and that it understands its proper operation and use without further instructions regarding
operation and use from Lessor. Lessee acknowledges that it has had an opportunity to inspect all hitches, bolts, safety chains, hauling tongues and other devices and materials used to connect the Equipment to Lessee’s
vehicle, if any, and Lessee declares that it has received the Equipment in a secure and operative condition. Lessee shall, whenever requested, advise Lessor of the exact location of the Equipment. Lessor, other
equipment dealers, and equipment manufacturers may use data reporting systems at any time during this Contract to collect equipment data from the Equipment and determine its location, condition, or other operating
parameters.
9. Solvency. Lessee represents to Lessor that Lessee is not insolvent and should it become insolvent, that it will return all Equipment to Lessor immediately.
10. Rental Period/Rate/Payment. Rental period is for a maximum of 24 hours unless a longer term is specified in the “return date.” Rental charges begin immediately upon delivery of the Equipment to the location
directed by the Lessee or upon Equipment leaving Lessor, whichever happens first. Rental charges end upon return of the Equipment to Lessor in an acceptable condition. If the Equipment is returned prior to the end of
the minimum rental period, the rental due shall be for the entire designated rental period. Lessor may terminate or cancel rental at any time and retake the Equipment without further notice in case of violation by Lessee
of any terms or conditions of this Contract. Lessee agrees to pay any collection costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in relat ion to any matter arising under this Contract, including trials, appeals and bankruptcy
proceedings. Rental rates are based upon single shift usage. Overtime usage is determined by service meter hour readings. If Lessee makes greater use of the Equipment, it is agreed that the additional usage will be
charged.
11. Ordinary Wear and Tear. “Ordinary wear and tear” shall mean only the normal deterioration of the Equipment caused by ordinary, reasonable and proper use of the Equipment on a one-shift basis. Damage which is
not “ordinary wear and tear” includes but is not limited to: damage resulting from lack of fuel or lubrication; failure to maintain proper oil, water, hydraulic or air pressure levels; damage due to overturning, overloading
or exceeding a rated capacity; improper use; abuse; lack of cleaning; tire or track damages. Lessee shall be responsible for all damage not caused from ordinary wear and tear.
12. Compliance with Laws/Use of Equipment. Lessee agrees not to use or allow anyone to use the Equipment for any illegal purpose or in any illegal manner. Lessee acknowledges that Lessor has no physical control
over the use of the Equipment. Lessee agrees at his sole cost and expense to comply with all municipal, county, state and federal laws, ordinances and regulations (including OSHA) which may apply to the use of the
Equipment during the rental period. Lessee further agrees to pay all licenses, fees, permits or taxes arising from his use of the Equipment, including any subsequently determined to be due as a result of an audit. Lessee
shall not permit Equipment to be operated by any person other than Lessee or Lessee’s duly authorized employee, who has experience and training in the safe and proper use and operation of the Equipment, and is not
under the influence of alcohol, intoxicants, narcotics or drugs. If Equipment is a motor vehicle, Lessee warrants and agrees that Equipment will not be operated or used by any person who has been convicted of a major
traffic violation (excluding parking violations) including, but not limited to, careless or reckless driving, or driving while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants within the prior three years. Lessee
shall not allow any person to use or operate the Equipment when it is in need of repair or when it is in an unsafe condition or situation; modify, misuse, harm or abuse the Equipment; permit any repairs to the Equipment
without Lessor’s written permission; or allow a lien to be placed upon the Equipment. Lessee agrees to check filters, oil, fluid levels, air pressure and clean and visually inspect the Equipment at least daily and to
discontinue use and immediately notify Lessor when Equipment is found to need repair or maintenance. Lessee acknowledges that Lessor has no responsibility to inspect the Equipment while it is in Lessee’s possession.
If the Equipment becomes unsafe or requires repair, Lessee shall discontinue using it and notify Lessor immediately.
13. Contamination-Free Return of Equipment. Lessee agrees to return the Equipment to Lessor during regular business hours upon “return date” or immediately upon terminat ion or cancellation of this Contract,
whichever occurs first. Lessee agrees to return Equipment free of contamination by Hazardous Substances (as defined by state and federal laws) and agrees that the cost of any cleaning and decontamination caused by
Lessee’s failure to do so will be Lessee’s responsibility. Lessee must inform Lessor if the Equipment has been in contact with Hazardous Substances.
14. Sole Remedy. Lessee’s sole remedy for any failure of or defect in the Equipment shall be termination of the rental charges at the time of failure, provided that Lessee notifies Lessor immediately of such failure and
returns the Equipment to Lessor within 24 hours of such failure. Lessor shall not be liable for damages of any kind, including special, incidental or consequential damages.
15. Purchase Orders. Any use of Lessee’s purchase order number in or on this Contract is for Lessee’s convenience in identification only.
16. Default. Should Lessee in any way fail to observe or comply with any provision of this Contract, Lessor may, at its sole option, exercise any and all of the following remedies: (a) termination of this Contract, (b) retake
the Equipment, (c) declare any outstanding rent and charges due and payable and initiate legal process to recover the monies, (d) pursue any of the remedies available to Lessor. Exercise of any remedy available to
Lessor shall not constitute an election of remedies or a waiver of any additional remedies to which Lessor may be entitled.
17. Retaking of Equipment. If for any reason it becomes necessary for Lessor to retake the Equipment, permission is granted to Lessor to enter upon property, including tribal lands, and retake the Equipment without
further notice.
18. Accidents and Indemnification. For and in additional consideration of providing the Equipment, Lessee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Lessor, its assigns, the wholesale distributor, or the
manufacturer, its affiliated companies, and its and their officers, agents and employees for, from and against all loss, liability, claim, action or expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of Lessee’s use or
possession of the Equipment. The foregoing includes, without limitation, property damage and bodily injury, including death, sustained by any person or persons, including, but not limited to, employees of Lessee,
arising out of the maintenance, use, possession, operation, erection, dismantling, servicing or transportation of the Equipment or Lessee’s failure to comply with the terms of this Contract, except to the extent caused
solely by the gross negligence or the intentional wrongful act of Lessor.
19. Insurance and Loss Damage Waiver. Lessee will, at all times during the term of this Contract, maintain general and auto liability coverages in amounts that may be required from time to time by Lessor, of not less
than $1,000,000. If Lessee does not elect loss damage waiver (LDW), Lessee shall maintain contractor’s equipment physical damage coverage for rented Equipment in an amount of the value of the Equipment. Lessee
shall provide a certificate evidencing such insurance with Lessor named as an additional insured and loss payee. Unless Lessee provides adequate proof of such physical damage insurance, Lessee is provided with and
charged for LDW. LDW is a service offered by Lessor to cover repair charges for accidental damage and does not relieve Lessee from responsibility for damage to the Equipment caused by gross negligence, abuse or
other willful misconduct. The charge for LDW will appear as a separate line item in your invoice and is not insurance.
20. Venue, Sovereign Immunity and Jury Trial Waiver. Lessee agrees that jurisdiction and venue for the litigation of any disputes arising under the Contract shall be in the applicable state or federal court in the county
in which Lessor is located. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the United States and the laws of the state in which this Contract was entered into. Lessee waives its sovereign immunity to any legal action,
arbitration, or other proceeding brought to enforce this Contract or resolve any dispute and further waives its sovereign immunity as to the enforcement of any judgment or award resulting therefrom. LESSOR AND
LESSEE HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY OF ANY CLAIM ARISING OR CONNECTED IN ANY WAY WITH THIS CONTRACT.
21. Notice of Non-Waiver/Severability. No failure of Lessor to insist upon strict performance by Lessee as regards to any provision of this Contract shall be interpreted as a waiver of Lessor’s right to demand strict
compliance with all other provisions of this Contract against Lessee or any other person. The provisions of this Contract shall be severable so that unenforceability, invalidity or waiver of any provision shall not effect
any other provision.
22. Assignment. Lessee agrees that Lessor may assign this Contract and all right, title, and interest of Lessor in and to the Equipment, and all sums due or to become due to Lessor hereunder (of which assignment Lessee
hereby waives notice), and Lessee agrees to recognize such assignment. Lessee’s obligation to pay rent under this Contract will not as to any such assignee be subject to any diminution arising out of any breach of any
obligation hereunder or other liability of Lessor to Lessee. Lessee may not assign this Contract. Lessee further agrees to make rental payments directly to any assignee of Lessor, upon and following receipt of evidence
of assignment and a written request to do so, and Lessor agrees to recognize any payment so made as satisfaction of Lessee’s obligation to make that payment hereunder.
23. Other Provisions. It is agreed that this Contract contains all of the Contract of the parties, and it is further agreed that no representation, warranty or agreements other than those set forth herein shall be binding upon
either of the parties hereto unless the same is reduced to writing, signed by both parties to this Contract and purports to be an express modification of this Contract.
3003TR (03/12)
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
STAFF REPORT
RE: No on Proposition 6 Support MEETING DATE: 9-4-18
SUBMITTED BY: Margaret Silveira, City Manager

To review and approve resolution supporting “No” on Proposition 6 for the November 6, 2018 Statewide
Ballot Measure.
On April 28, 2017, Governor Brown signed in to action Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017. This is a long-term solution that will provide new revenues for road safety
improvements, fill potholes and repair local streets, highways, and bridges.
Voters overwhelmingly passed Prop 69 in June thereby ensuring transportation funds can only be used for
transportation purposes and the State and local governments are accountable to taxpayers. Prop 6 would
eliminate transportation revenues that are accountable to taxpayers, can’t be diverted or borrowed, and that
voters overwhelmingly dedicated to fixing our roads.
Cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and roads in California, and from the
moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to school, or walk to the bus station, people are
dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation network. The 2016 California Statewide Local Streets
and Roads Needs Assessment, which provides critical analysis and information on the local transportation
network’s condition and funding needs, indicates that the condition of the local transportation network is
deteriorating at an increasing rate.
California has more than 1,600 bridges and overpasses that are structurally deficient and unsafe and 89% of
counties have roads that are in ‘poor’ or ‘at-risk’ condition. According to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Association, there were more than 3,600 fatalities on California roads in 2016, with poor road
conditions as a major factor in vehicle collisions and accidents.
Prop 6 would eliminate more than $52 billion over the next 10 years in existing transportation funding,
including the $15 billion in direct apportionments, and $11 billion in available competitive grant funding, to
cities and counties statewide. Prop 6 would stop funding for more than 6,500 transportation improvement
projects currently underway or planned in every California community. Prop 6 would jeopardize public
safety by eliminating thousands of projects to fix unsafe bridges and overpasses, repair crumbling and
unsafe roads, and enhance pedestrian safety.
Meeting Date: 09/04/2018 Page 1 Agenda Item #VI.C.1.

The City has already used SB1 funds for a portion of the Third Street ADA parking and road pavement.
The Safe Routes to School project was bumped up a year due to the infusion of SB1 funds and the
roundabout at Lakeport Blvd. and Main Street State funds were scheduled to be cut, these funds are now
protected with SB1. The 11th Street Corridor Study was funded due to infusion of SB1 funds into the
Sustainability Grant Program.
The 2018/19 budget includes paving and sidewalk improvements on Second Street from Main Street to
Park.
Lake County, including the two cities, is scheduled to receive $45 Million dollars in SB1 funds over the next
10 years.
Attached is a flier “Transportation Projects Underway in the Bay Area Region”, Lake County is part of the
Bay area region, listing the projects that are currently underway in the region with SB1 funds.
OPTIONS:
Approve
Disapprove
No action
FISCAL IMPACT:
Loss of revenue for future transportation projects. Account Number:
Comments:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to adopt a resolution supporting opposition to Proposition 6, “Repeal of the Road Repair and
Accountability Act”, which will appear on the November 6th , 2018 Ballot
Attachments: 1. Resolution
2. Transportation Projects Underway in the Bay Area Region

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. __(2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEPORT SUPPORTING

OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 6, “REPEAL OF THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT”, WHICH WILL APPEAR ON THE NOVEMBER 6, 2018
BALLOT.
WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and roads in
California, and from the moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to school, or
walk to the bus station, people are dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation
network; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, which
provides critical analysis and information on the local transportation network’s condition and
funding needs, indicates that the condition of the local transportation network is deteriorating
at an increasing rate; and
WHEREAS, California has more than 1,600 bridges and overpasses that are structurally deficient
and unsafe and 89% of counties have roads that are in ‘poor’ or ‘at-risk’ condition; and
WHEREAS, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, there were more than
3,600 fatalities on California roads in 2016, with poor road conditions as a major factor in
vehicle collisions and accidents; and
WHEREAS, Prop 6 would eliminate more than $52 billion over the next 10 years in existing
transportation funding, including the $15 billion in direct apportionments, and $11 billion in
available competitive grant funding, to cities and counties statewide; and
WHEREAS, Prop 6 would stop funding for more than 6,500 transportation improvement
projects currently underway or planned in every California community; and
WHEREAS, Prop 6 would jeopardize public safety by eliminating thousands of projects to fix
unsafe bridges and overpasses, repair crumbling and unsafe roads, and enhance pedestrian
safety; and
WHEREAS, Prop 6 would raid $45 million annually dedicated to Lake County, and halt critical
investments in future transportation improvement projects in our community
that will be used for:
• The Safe Routes to School Project
• The roundabout at Lakeport Blvd. and Main Street; and
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, voters overwhelmingly passed Prop 69 in June thereby ensuring transportation

funds can only be used for transportation purposes and the State and local governments are
accountable to taxpayers; and
WHEREAS, Prop 6 would eliminate transportation revenues that are accountable to taxpayers,
can’t be diverted or borrowed, and that voters overwhelmingly dedicated to fixing our roads.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lakeport hereby opposes Prop
6 on the November 2018 ballot; and
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Lakeport can be listed as a member of
the No on Prop 6 coalition, a diverse coalition of local governments, public safety organizations,
business, labor, environmental leaders, transportation advocates and other organizations
throughout the state.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 4TH day of September, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
________________________________
MIREYA G. TURNER, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
KELLY BUENDIA, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF LAKEPORT
City Council
Lakeport Industrial Development Authority
STAFF REPORT
RE: 2018 League of California Cities Annual Conference MEETING DATE: 09/04/2018
Resolutions
SUBMITTED BY: Margaret Silveira, City Manager

The City Council is being asked to give direction to the City’s voting delegate in regards to the resolution that will
be voted on at the 2018 League of California Cities Annual Conference.
The Lakeport City Council appointed Mayor Turner as the voting delegate for the Annual League of Cities
Conference with Mayor Pro Tem Barnes as the first alternate and Council Member Parlet as the second
alternate.
Each year the League of California Cities Board and Policy Committees review and discuss legislation that is
being proposed and lobby for legislation that is beneficial to local governments and communities. The League of
Cities encourages each city to consider these resolutions and determine a city position so that our voting
delegate can represent our city’s position on each resolution.
This year, two resolutions have been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and referred to the
League policy committees. Full text of the resolutions and an analysis by the League of California Cities Staff is
included in the Annual Conference Packet, which is attached. The proposed Resolutions are as follows:
1. Resolution of the League of California Cities calling upon the League to respond to the increasing
vulnerabilities to local municipal authority, control and revenue and explore the preparation of a
ballot measure and/or Constitutional Amendment that would further strengthen local democracy
and authority.
The proposed resolution directs the League of California Cities to assess the increasing vulnerabilities
to local authority, control and revenue. It also directs the League of California Cities to explore the
preparation of a ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment which would aim to ensure that
decisions are made as close to home as possible.
A ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment would provide the state’s voters an opportunity to
further strengthen local authority and maintain the role of local democracy to best preserve their local
quality of life while still leaving the appropriate issues at the county, regional or state legislature
depending on the topic.

2. A Resolution of the League of California Cities declaring its commitment to support the repeal of
preemption in California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 that prevents local governments from
regulating pesticides/
This resolution seeks to have the state and the League study the negative impacts of anticoagulant
rodenticides and address the inability of cities to regulate the use of rodenticides and pesticides.
Specifically related to anticoagulant rodenticides, the resolution would encourage the state to fund
research into the negative impacts and a potential restriction or ban; direct the League to consider
creating a task force to study and report on the unintended negative consequences; encourage cities
and property owners to eliminate use; and encourage cities to join advocacy efforts. In addition, the
resolution would direct the League to endorse repeal of a statute that preempts local regulation of
pesticides.
OPTIONS:
Direct the City of Lakeport’s voting delegate to support the resolutions provided in the Annual Conference
Resolutions Packet or provide other direction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Comments:
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Move to direct the City of Lakeport’s voting delegate to the League of California Cities Annual Conference to
support the two (2) Resolutions provided in the Annual Conference Resolutions Packet.
Attachments: 1. Annual Conference Resolutions Packet

ATTACHMENT 1
Annual Conference
Resolutions Packet
2018 Annual Conference Resolutions
Long Beach, California

September 12 – 14, 2018
ATTACHMENT 1
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES
RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that

resolutions shall be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and
recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the
General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference.
This year, two resolutions have been introduced for consideration at the Annual Conference and
referred to League policy committees.
POLICY COMMITTEES: Five policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider
and take action on the resolutions referred to them. The committees are: Environmental Quality,
Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations; Housing, Community & Economic Development;
Revenue and Taxation; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works. The committees will
meet from 9:00 – 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 12, at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach. The
sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meeting.
GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday,
September 13, at the Hyatt Long Beach, to consider the reports of the policy committees regarding
the resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League’s regional
divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals
appointed by the League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room location.
ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting

will be held at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 14, at the Long Beach Convention Center.
PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day
deadline, a resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by
designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (48 valid signatures required) and
presented to the Voting Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the
Annual Business Meeting of the General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:30 p.m.,
Thursday, September 13. Resolutions can be viewed on the League's Web site:
www.cacities.org/resolutions.
Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond at the
League office: [email protected] or (916) 658-8224
1
ATTACHMENT 1
GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for
deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through the League’s seven standing policy
committees and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a
changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy
decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions
should adhere to the following criteria.
Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions
1. Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted
at the Annual Conference.
2. The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern.
3. The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy.
4. The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives:
(a) Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities.
(b) Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around
which more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the board of
directors.
(c) Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and
board of directors.
(d) Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly).
2
ATTACHMENT 1
LOCATION OF MEETINGS
Policy Committee Meetings

Wednesday, September 12, 9:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach
The following committees will be meeting:

1. Environmental Quality
2. Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations
3. Housing, Community & Economic Development
4. Revenue & Taxation
5. Transportation, Communication & Public Works
General Resolutions Committee

Thursday, September 13, 1:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach
Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon

Friday, September 14, 12:30 p.m.
Long Beach Convention Center
300 East Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach
3
ATTACHMENT 1
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.
Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action
1 2 3
1 - Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2 - General Resolutions Committee
3 - General Assembly
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE

1 2 3
2 Repeal Preemption of Regulating Pesticides
GOVERNANCE, TRANSPARENCY & LABOR RELATIONS POLICY COMMITTEE

1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE

1 2 3
REVENUE & TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE

1 2 3
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE

1 2 3
Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each
committee’s page on the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet will
be posted at: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
4
ATTACHMENT 1
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.
KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN
1. Policy Committee A Approve
2. General Resolutions Committee D Disapprove
3. General Assembly N No Action
R Refer to appropriate policy committee for

study
ACTION FOOTNOTES
a Amend+
* Subject matter covered in another resolution Aa Approve as amended+
** Existing League policy Aaa Approve with additional amendment(s)+
*** Local authority presently exists Ra Refer as amended to appropriate policy

committee for study+
Raa Additional amendments and refer+
Da Amend (for clarity or brevity) and

Disapprove+
Na Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take No

Action+
W Withdrawn by Sponsor
Procedural Note:
The League of California Cities resolution process at the Annual Conference is guided by the League
Bylaws. A helpful explanation of this process can be found on the League’s website by clicking on this
link: Resolution Process.
5
ATTACHMENT 1
1. RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING UPON THE

LEAGUE TO RESPOND TO THE INCREASING VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, CONTROL AND REVENUE AND EXPLORE THE
PREPARATION OF A BALLOT MEASURE AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD FURTHER STRENGTHEN LOCAL DEMOCRACY
AND AUTHORITY
Source: City of Beverly Hills

Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities: Arcadia, Burbank, Cupertino; Duarte;
Oceanside; Ontario; Palo Alto; Redondo Beach; Santa Cruz; Sunnyvale; Torrance; West
Hollywood
Referred to: Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations; Housing, Community & Economic
Development; Revenue and Taxation; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works
Policy Committees
WHEREAS, the State of California is comprised of diverse communities that are home
to persons of differing backgrounds, needs, and aspirations; yet united by the vision that the most
accessible, responsive, effective, and transparent form of democratic government is found at the
local level and in their own communities; and
WHEREAS, subsidiarity is the principle that democratic decisions are best made at the
most local level best suited to address the needs of the People, and suggests that local
governments should be allowed to find solutions at the local level before the California
Legislature imposes uniform and overreaching measures throughout the State; and
WHEREAS, the California Constitution recognizes that local self-government is the

cornerstone of democracy by empowering cities to enact local laws and policies designed to
protect the local public health, safety and welfare of their residents and govern the municipal
affairs of charter cities; and
WHEREAS, over recent years there have been an increasing number of measures
introduced within the Legislature or proposed for the state ballot, often sponsored by powerful
interest groups and corporations, aimed at undermining the authority, control and revenue
options for local governments and their residents; and
WHEREAS, powerful interest groups and corporations are willing to spend millions in
political contributions to legislators to advance legislation, or to hire paid signature gatherers to
qualify deceptive ballot proposals attempting to overrule or silence the voices of local residents
and their democratically-elected local governments affected by their proposed policies; and
WHEREAS, powerful interest groups and corporations propose and advance such
measures because they view local democracy as an obstacle that disrupts the efficiency of
implementing corporate plans and increasing profits and therefore object when local residents—
either through their elected city councils, boards of supervisors, special district boards, or by
action of local voters—enact local ordinances and policies tailored to fit the needs of their
individual communities; and
6
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, public polling repeatedly demonstrates that local residents and voters have
the highest levels of confidence in levels of government that are closest to the people, and thus
would be likely to strongly support a ballot measure that would further strengthen the ability of
communities to govern themselves without micromanagement from the state or having their
authority undermined by deep-pocketed and powerful interests and corporations.
RESOLVED that the League of California Cities should assess the increasing
vulnerabilities to local authority, control and revenue and explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment that would give the state’s voters an opportunity to
further strengthen local authority and preserve the role of local democracy to best preserve their
local quality of life.
7
ATTACHMENT 1
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source: City of Beverly Hills
Background:
The relationship between the state and cities functions best as a partnership where major
policy issues are approached by the state with careful consideration of the varied conditions
among the state’s 482 cities and 58 counties. There should be an appreciation of the
importance of retaining local flexibility to tailor policies to reflect the needs and
circumstances of the local community. Still, cities have had to respond to state legislation
that undermines the principle of “local control” over important issues such as land use,
housing, finance, infrastructure, elections, labor relations and other issues directly affecting
cities.
Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” examined the operation of the principle

of subsidiarity in the early 19th century. Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that states
matters should be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority.
Tocqueville wrote that "Decentralization has not only an administrative value, but also a
civic dimension, since it increases the opportunities for citizens to take interest in public
affairs; it makes them get accustomed to using freedom.” Tocqueville’s works were first
published in 1835 with a second volume published in 1840. The United States had a
population of just 17 million people in 1840, less than 50% of the population of California
today and yet there was value found in decentralization.
Another consideration is to examine how the European Union (“EU”) operates. There are
two prime guiding principles for the EU. The first is principle of conferral, which states
that the EU should act only within the limits of the competences conferred on it by the
treaties. The second, which is relevant to this resolution, is the principle of subsidiarity,
which states that the EU should act only where an objective cannot be sufficiently achieved
by the member states acting alone. Sacramento should operate in a similar manner and only
govern when objectives need to be achieved at a much larger level than a local government.
For years, Governor Jerry Brown himself has spoken on the principle of “subsidiarity.”
Governor Brown has asserted for numerous years that local officials should have the
flexibility to act without micromanagement from Sacramento.
Legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 by the state legislature has continually
threatened local control in flagrant opposition to the principle of subsidiarity. This has
included, but not been limited to, Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities (“SB 649”) in 2017; AB 252 (Ridley-Thomas) Local government: taxation:
prohibition: video streaming services (“AB 252”) in 2017; and Senate Bill 827 (Wiener)
Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus (“SB 827”) in 2018.
SB 649 would have applied to all telecommunications providers and the equipment they
use, including “micro-wireless,” “small cell,” and “macro-towers,” as well as a range of
video and cable services. The bill would have allowed the use of “small cell” wireless
8
ATTACHMENT 1
antennas and related equipment without a local discretionary permit in all zoning districts
as a use by-right, subject only to an administrative permit. Additionally, SB 649 provided a
de facto CEQA exemption for the installation of such facilities and precluded consideration
by the public for the aesthetic, nuisance, and environmental impacts of these facilities. SB
649 would have also removed the ability for cities to obtain fair and reasonable
compensation when authorizing the use of public property and rights of way from a “for
profit” company for this type of use.
SB 649 passed out of the State Assembly by a vote of 46-16-17 and out of the State Senate
by a vote of 22-10-8 despite over 300 cities and 47 counties in California providing letters
of opposition. Ultimately, Governor Brown vetoed the bill as he believed “that the interest
which localities have in managing rights of way requires a more balanced solution than the
one achieved in this bill.” It is strongly believed that the issue of wireless
telecommunications facilities is not over and it is anticipated that legislation will be
introduced on this topic in January 2019.
Another example of an incursion into local control was AB 252, which would have
prohibited any tax on the sale or use of video streaming services, including sales and use
taxes and utility user taxes. Over the last two decades, voters in 107 cities and 3 counties
have adopted measures to modernize their Utility User Tax (“UUT”) ordinances. Of these
jurisdictions, 87 cities and 1 county approved ordinances to allow a UUT on video
providers. Prior to its first Committee hearing, AB 252 received opposition letters from 37
cities, the League of California Cities, South Bay Council of Governments, California
Contract Cities Association, and nine other organizations. This bill failed in the Assembly
Revenue and Taxation Committee 8-0-2, which the author of the Committee chaired.
More recently, SB 827 would have overridden local control on housing development that
was within ½ mile of a major transit stop or ¼ mile from a high-quality bus corridor as
defined by the legislation with some limitations. On April 17, 2018, SB 827 failed in the
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee 4-6-3 but was granted reconsideration. State
legislators have indicated they will continue to introduce legislation that will override local
zoning ordinances for the development of affordable housing in conjunction with mixed
use and/or luxury condominium/apartment housing.
These are just three examples of the increasing attempts by Sacramento to supersede local
control. Presently, there are discussions occurring in Sacramento to ban cities from creating
their own municipal broadband or to prohibit local ordinances over the regulation of shared
mobility devices such as dockless electric scooters. These decisions should remain with
each individual jurisdiction to decide based on the uniqueness of their community and the
constituents that live in each city.
Often fueled by the actions of special interest groups, Sacramento is continually attempting
to overreach their authority with various incursions on local control. The desire in
Sacramento to strip communities of their ability to make decisions over issues which
should remain at the local level seems to intensify each state legislative cycle. Increasingly,
legislation is being introduced with a “one-size-fits-all” approach which is detrimental in a
9
ATTACHMENT 1
state with over 40 million residents that have extremely diverse communities from the
desert to the sea, from the southern to the northern borders.
Loren King in the book “Cities, Subsidiarity and Federalism” states, “Decisions should be
made at the lowest feasible scale possible”. The proposed resolution directs the League of
California Cities to assess the increasing vulnerabilities to local authority, control and
revenue. It also directs the League of California Cities to explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment which would aim to ensure that decisions are
made as close to home as possible.
Local government, when done right, is the best form of democracy precisely because it is
closest to home. A ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment would provide the
state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and maintain the role of
local democracy to best preserve their local quality of life while still leaving the appropriate
issues at the county, regional or state legislature depending on the topic. Any ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment should institutionalize the principle of
subsidiarity, while encouraging inclusive regional cooperation that recognizes the diversity
of California’s many individual communities. The time has come to allow the residents of
California’s voters to decide if they prefer top down governance from Sacramento or
bottom up governing from their own locally elected officials.
10
ATTACHMENT 1
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff: Dan Carrigg, Johnnie Pina

Committees: Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations
Housing, Community & Economic Development
Revenue & Taxation
Transportation, Communication and Public Works
Summary:
This Resolution states that the League of California Cities should assess the vulnerabilities to
local authority, control and revenue and explore the preparation of a ballot measure and or
constitutional amendment that would give the state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen
local authority and preserve the role of local democracy.
Background:
The City of Beverly Hills is sponsoring this resolution in reaction to their concerns over
measures coming from the Legislature and the initiative process attempting to roll back local
control and hinder cities from providing optimal services to their residents.
As examples, the city cites the 2017-2018 legislative cycle, the Legislature introduced bills such
as Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, and AB 252 (Ridley-
Thomas) proposing to prohibit taxes on video streaming services, and more recently Senate Bill
827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing. SB 649 was vetoed by the Governor
and SB 827 died in policy committee, however if these measures had been signed into law they
would have impinged on the ability of a local government to be responsive to the needs of their
constituents.
The city maintains that “local government, when done right, is the best form of democracy
precisely because it is closest to home. A ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment would
provide the state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and maintain the
role of local democracy to best preserve their local quality of life while still leaving the
appropriate issues at the county, regional or state legislature depending on the topic.”
Fiscal Impact:
By requesting the League to “assess” vulnerabilities and “explore” the preparation of a ballot
measure that would further protect local authority, there are no proposals to be quantified. But it
is presumed that the League would not pursue a measure that did not have positive impacts of
further protecting local authority.
For the League as an organization, however, the fiscal impact of sponsoring a ballot measure can
be very expensive. It can take several million dollars to qualify a measure via signature
gathering, and much more to fund an effective campaign and overcome organized opposition.
Comments:
1) Ballot measure advocacy is a settled aspect of California’s political process. This year’s
November ballot is an example of that, with proposals ranging from dividing California
11
ATTACHMENT 1
into three states, restoring rent control, repealing transportation funding, to funding
housing and water bonds. Three other measures are not on the November ballot after
their sponsors spent millions gathering signatures to qualify measures, then leveraged
last-minute legislative deals in exchange for pulling them from the ballot.
2) Most major stakeholder organizations in Sacramento have realized that they cannot rely
on legislative advocacy alone to protect their interests, but must develop and maintain the
capacity to protect their interests in the ballot process as well.
3) The League has been engaged in ballot advocacy for nearly 20 years. In the early 2000’s,
city officials were angered by repeated state raids of local revenues. These concerns led
to the League –-for the first time in its then 100-year history—developing a ballot
advocacy infrastructure that included forming and fundraising for an issues political
action committee (PAC), establishing a network of regional managers, and building a
coalition with other organizations that ultimately led to the passage of Prop. 1A of 2004.
Over the years, the League’s successful campaigns include the passage of Proposition 1A
and Proposition 99 and the defeat of Propositions 90 and 98.
a. Yes on Proposition 1A (2004)

As a result of the passage of Prop 1A, local government revenues that otherwise
would have been raided by the state legislature were kept in local coffers. This
resulted in increased funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks and other
locally delivered services. Proposition 1A PASSED WITH 83.7% OF THE
VOTE.
b. No on Proposition 90 (2006)
Prop. 90 was a well-financed special interest-backed initiative that sought to
eliminate most of local governments’ land use decision making authority. Led by
the League, the opposition educated voters on how this measure’s far reaching
provisions would have cost taxpayers billions of dollars by driving up the cost of
infrastructure projects, prevented voters and state and local agencies from
enacting environmental protections, jeopardized public safety services and more.
Proposition 90 FAILED WITH 52.4% OF THE VOTERS VOTING NO.
c. No on Proposition 98 Yes on Proposition 99 (2008)

Given the hidden agendas within Prop 98, our message was not always an easy
one to communicate to the electorate. The No on 98/ Yes on 99 campaign was
able to educate voters on the important differences between both measures. As a
result, important eminent domain reforms were enacted and both land use
decision making and rent control were preserved within our communities.
Proposition 98 FAILED WITH 61.6% OF THE VOTERS VOTING NO.
Proposition 99 PASSED BY 61% OF THE VOTE.
d. Yes on Proposition 22 (2010)

As a result of the passage, local governments have been able to pay for
infrastructure investment, create local jobs and avoid devastating cuts in our
communities. Proposition 22 APPROVED BY 60.7% OF VOTERS.
12
ATTACHMENT 1
4) While the League has been able to recently defeat several major legislative proposals
aimed and undermining local authority, and avoid a battle over the Business
Roundtable’s measure in November due to the “soda tax” deal, the threats to local
authority and revenue remain a constant concern. Other interest groups may be
emboldened by some of the recent “deals” cut by ballot proponents and seek to
implement similar strategies for the 2020 ballot. The next Governor may also have
different philosophies then Governor Jerry Brown on “subsidiarity.”
5) The League’s President opted to send this resolution to four policy committees for
several reasons: (a) the recent major threats to local control covered broad policy areas:
telecom, land use, contracting, and revenue; and (b) having this issue vetted broadly
within the League policy process will provide a better assessment of the depth of concern
for the vulnerability to local control within the membership
6) If the membership chooses to approve this measure, it is strongly advisable to retain
continued flexibility for the League to “assess” vulnerabilities and “explore” options.
Any ballot initiative consideration must be approached very carefully by the organization.
It is a difficult and very expensive endeavor that can have additional political
ramifications. For 120 years the League’s core mission has been to protect local control -
- and it has gone to the ballot successfully before to do so -- but any such effort must be
approached thoughtfully, prudently and cautiously.
Existing League Policy:

Related to this Resolution, existing policy provides:
 The League of California Cities’ Mission Statement is, “To expand and protect local
control for cities through education and advocacy. To enhance the quality of life for all
Californians”
 The League of California Cities’ Summary of Existing Policy and Guidelines states,
“We Believe
o Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy.
o Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest.
o In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving
problems.
o In conducting the business of government with openness, respect, and civility.
o The spirit of public service is what builds communities.
o Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public
trust.
o Cities are the economic engine of California.
o The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy.
o The active participation of all city officials increases the League’s effectiveness.
o Focused advocacy and lobbying is most effective through partnerships and
collaboration.
o Well-informed city officials mean responsive, visionary leadership, and effective
and efficient
o city operations.”
 Click here to view the Summary of Existing Policy and Guiding Principles 2018.
13
ATTACHMENT 1
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received: Steven Scharf, Cupertino City Council
Member; Michael S. Goldman, Sunnyvale City Council; Lydia Kou, Palo Alto City Council
Member; David Terrazas, Mayor of Santa Cruz; Peter Weiss, Mayor of Oceanside; Alan D.
Wapner, Mayor pro Tem of Ontario; Patrick Furey, Mayor of Torrance; Lauren Meister, West
Hollywood Council Member; Liz Reilly, Duarte Mayor Pro Tem; Bill Brand, Mayor of Redondo
Beach; Sho Tay, Mayor of Arcadia; Emily Gabel-Luddy, Mayor of Burbank.
14
ATTACHMENT 1
2. A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS

COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Source: City of Malibu

Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities: Agoura Hills; Calabasas; Davis; Menlo
Park; Moorpark; Ojai; Oxnard; Richmond; West Hollywood
Referred to: Environmental Quality
WHEREAS, anticoagulant rodenticides are poisonous bait products that are poisoning
80 to 90% of predator wildlife in California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging
in non-target animals, including pets, that accidentally ingest the products. Approximately
10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally poisoned by anticoagulant rodenticides each
year nationwide; and
WHEREAS, in response to these harms, the California Department of Pesticide

Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of second-generation anticoagulant
rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost four years after this ban, the
Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease in poisonings by
anticoagulant rodenticides; and
WHEREAS, the state of California currently only recognizes the harm posed by second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides, which are prohibited in state wildlife habitat areas but are
still available for agricultural purposes and by certified applicators throughout the state of
California; and
WHEREAS, first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides are still available to the public

and used throughout California without limitation; and
WHEREAS, nonpoisonous rodent control methods, such as controlling trash, sealing

buildings, setting traps, erecting raptor poles and owl boxes, and removing rodent nesting areas
are also effective rodent control methods; and
WHEREAS, the state of California preempts cities from regulating pesticides; and
WHEREAS, many cities across California have passed resolutions restricting pesticide
use on city property and have expressed the desire to ban the use of pesticides within their
jurisdictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of

California Cities, assembled in Long Beach, California on September 14, 2018, to do as follows:
1. Encourage the state of California to fund and sponsor further research into the negative
impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides to determine whether the use of these products
should be further restricted or banned statewide.
15
ATTACHMENT 1
2. Direct the League of California Cities staff to consider creating a task force with other
organizations and jointly commission a report on the unintended negative impact of
anticoagulant rodenticides;
3. Encourage cities throughout California to eliminate use of anticoagulant rodenticides as

part of their maintenance program in city-owned parks, lands, and facilities and to report
on the effectiveness of other rodent control methods used in in their maintenance
program;
4. Encourage property owners throughout California to eliminate use of anticoagulant

rodenticides on their properties;
5. Encourage cities throughout California to join in these advocacy efforts to mitigate the
unintended negative impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides;
6. Endorse a repeal of California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 to end local
preemption of regulating pesticides; and
7. Call for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California Cities
and other stakeholders to consider and implement this reform.
16
ATTACHMENT 1
Background Information on Resolution
Source: City of Malibu

Background:
A. Anticoagulant rodenticides are unnecessarily destructive and dangerous

Anticoagulant rodenticides contain lethal agents that disrupt the normal blood clotting or
coagulation process causing dosed rodents to die from uncontrolled bleeding or hemorrhaging.
Deaths typically occur between four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait.
Animals commonly targeted by anticoagulant rodenticides include rats, mice, gophers and
squirrels. Non-target predator wildlife victims, which are exposed to an 80-90% risk of
poisoning, include owls, hawks, bobcats, bears, foxes, coyotes, and mountain lions. The
endangered species at risk of poisoning include fishers, spotted owls, and San Joaquin foxes. The
use of anticoagulant rodenticides not only harms rodents, but it commonly harms pets, such as
dogs, cats, and bunnies, and other wildlife that mistakenly eat the bait through primary poisoning
or that unknowingly consume animals that have ingested the anticoagulant rodenticide through
secondary poisoning. Children also suffer poisoning by mistakenly ingesting anticoagulant
rodenticides.
California recognizes the grave harm that can be caused by anticoagulant rodenticides and has
partially restricted access to second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides by the public:
Because of documented hazards to wildlife, pets and children, the California

Department of Pesticide Regulation has restricted public access to some of these
materials in California. As of July 1, 2014, rodenticide products containing the
active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone and difenacoum are
only to be used by licensed applicators (professional exterminators).1
California has also prohibited the use of these ingredients in any “wildlife habitat area,” which is
defined as “any state park, state wildlife refuge, or state conservancy.”2
The United State Environmental Protection Agency3 and the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation4 have both documented in detail the damage to wildlife from second-generation
anticoagulant rodenticides in support of the 2014 consumer ban on the purchase and use of the
products. While first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides are less toxic, they are far more
abundant due to their continued availability to all members of public.4 The California
Department of Fish & Wildlife was tasked with collecting data on poisoning incidents to
ascertain the effectiveness of the restrictions on second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides.
After almost four years of collecting data, there was no evidence supporting a reduction in the
number of poisonings.
1
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/living-with-wildlife/rodenticides.
2
Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 12978.7.
3
https://www.epa.gov/rodenticides/restrictions-rodenticide-products
4
https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/registration/reevaluation/chemicals/brodifacoum_final_assess.pdf
17
ATTACHMENT 1
Recent studies by the University of California, Los Angeles and the National Park Service on
bobcats have shown that first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning levels similar to the
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides poisoning levels.5 A comprehensive study of 111
mountain lions in 37 California counties found first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in the
liver tissue of 81 mountain lions (73% of those studied) across 33 of the 37 counties, and second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides in 102 mountain lions (92% of those studied) across 35 of
the 37 counties.6 First-generation anticoagulant rodenticides were identified as contributing to
the poisoning of Griffith Park mountain lion, P-22, (who was rescued), and the deaths of
Newbury Park mountain lion, P-34, and Verdugo Hills mountain lion, P-41.
This data demonstrates the inadequacy of current legislative measures to ameliorate the
documented problem caused by both second-generation and first-generation anticoagulant
rodenticides.
B. State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides
A general law city may not enact local laws that conflict with general state law.7 Local
legislation that conflicts with state law is void.8 A local law conflicts with state law if it (1)
duplicates, (2) contradicts, or (3) enters a field that has been fully occupied by state law, whether
expressly or by implication. A local law falling into any of these categories is “preempted” and is
unenforceable.
State law expressly bars local governments from regulating or prohibiting pesticide use. This bar
is codified in the California Food and Agricultural Code § 11501.1(a):
This division and Division 7 . . . are of statewide concern and occupy the whole
field of regulation regarding the registration, sale, transportation, or use of
pesticides to the exclusion of all local regulation. Except as otherwise specifically
provided in this code, no ordinance or regulation of local government, including,
but not limited to, an action by a local governmental agency or department, a county
board of supervisors, or a city council, or a local regulation adopted by the use of
an initiative measure, may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate any matter
relating to the registration, transportation, or use of pesticides, and any of these
ordinances, laws or regulations are void and of no force or effect.
State law also authorizes the state to take action against any local entity that promulgates an
ordinance or regulation that violates § 11501.1(a).9 The statute was specifically adopted to
overrule a 30 year old court decision in People v. County of Mendocino,10 which had held that a
5
L. E. K. Serieys, et al, “Anticoagulant rodenticides in urban bobcats: exposure, risk factors and potential effects
based on a 16-year study,” Ecotoxicology (2015) 24:844–862.
6
J. Rudd, et al, “Prevalence of First-Generation and Second-Generation Rodenticide Exposure in California
Mountain Lions,” Proceeding of the 28th Vertebrate Pest Conference, February 2018.
7
Cal. Const. art. XI § 7.
8
City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 729, 743.
9
Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 11501.1, subd. (b).
10
People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 476.
18
ATTACHMENT 1
local regulation prohibiting aerial application of phenoxy herbicides was not then preempted by
state or federal law.11
The use of pesticides is broadly regulated by state law. In the language of preemption law, the
state “occupies the field,” leaving no room for additional local law on the subject. Accordingly, a
city’s ban on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides would be unenforceable.
C. California should repeal the preemption in Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 11501.1 to
provide cities with the authority to decide how to regulate pesticides within their
own jurisdictions based on local concerns
The state of California should provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of pesticides in
their own jurisdictions based on their own individual local needs.
Recognizing that cities’ power to “make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary,
and other ordinances and regulations” is presently preempted by the general laws of the state,
cities throughout California request that the state provide cities with the authority to decide how
to deal with rodents based on their land use.
Depending on such land use, cities may decide to allow the use of nonpoisonous control
methods, non-anticoagulant rodenticides, or anticoagulant rodenticides, if necessary.
Nonpoisonous methods to control rodent pests, include sealing entrances to buildings, sanitizing
property, removing rodent habitats, such as ivy or wood piles, setting traps, and erecting raptor
poles or owl boxes. For example, a recent landmark study by Ventura County established that
installing raptor poles for hawks and owls was more effective than anticoagulant rodenticides in
reducing the damage to water control levees caused by ground squirrel burrows. Burrows
decreased by 66% with the change.12
The ultimate goal is to allow cities to address their local concerns with the input of community
members at open and public meetings. Presently, cities are unable to adequately address local
concerns; they are limited to encouraging or discouraging behavior.
D. Conclusion
The negative effects from the use of anticoagulant rodenticides across California has garnered
the interest of cities and community members to remedy the problem. By presenting this
resolution to the League of California Cities, the City of Malibu hopes to organize support and
gain interest at the state level to repeal the preemption in Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 11501.1 to
provide cities with the authority to regulate pesticides based on individual, local concerns.
11
IT Corp. v. Solano County Bd. Of Supervisors (1991) 1 Cal. 4th 81, fn. 9; Turner v. Chevron USA Inc., 2006 WL
1314013, fn. 14 (unpublished).
12
http://vcportal.ventura.org/BOS/District2/RaptorPilotStudy.pdf
19
ATTACHMENT 1
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2
Staff: Erin Evans-Fudem

Committee: Environmental Quality
Summary:
This resolution seeks to have the state and the League study the negative impacts of
anticoagulant rodenticides and address the inability of cities to regulate the use of rodenticides
and pesticides.
Specifically related to anticoagulant rodenticides, the resolution would encourage the state to
fund research into the negative impacts and a potential restriction or ban; direct the League to
consider creating a task force to study and report on the unintended negative consequences;
encourage cities and property owners to eliminate use; and encourage cities to join advocacy
efforts. In addition, the resolution would direct the League to endorse repeal of a statute that
preempts local regulation of pesticides.
Background:
The City of Malibu is sponsoring this resolution out of concern about the effect of a certain type
of rodent control (anticoagulant rodenticides) has on other wildlife. According to the City,
anticoagulant rodenticides disrupt the blood clotting process and therefore cause rodents to die
from bleeding or hemorrhaging. This rodenticide is commonly used on rats, mice, gophers, and
squirrels. Predator animals that eat rodents can be exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides if they
consume animals that have eaten the bait. These animals include owls, hawks, bobcats, bears,
foxes, coyotes, and mountain lions. Furthermore, pets can also be exposed to anticoagulant
rodenticides if they eat the bait or consume animals that have eaten the bait.
Some cities have passed “ceremonial resolutions” locally. For example, the City of Malibu has
two ordinances in place to discontinue use of rodenticides and traps in city-owned parks, roads,
and facilities, as well as encourage businesses and property owners not to use anticoagulant
rodenticides on their property.
Fiscal Impact:
Costs to cities would include using alternative methods of rodent control and studying the
efficacy. Since the resolution encourages, but does not mandate action by cities, city costs would
be taken on voluntarily.
Fiscal impact to the League would include costs associated with the task force, scientific
research, and educating League staff and members. For the task force, the League may incur
costs associated with staffing, convening, and educating a task force to study anticoagulant
rodenticides, as well as the cost of writing a report. This could include a need for outside experts
with knowledge of pesticides and their ecological impacts. League resources would also be
utilized to support proposals to repeal the statute preempting local regulation of pesticides;
however, this cost may be absorbed with existing staff resources.
20
ATTACHMENT 1
Comments:
Pesticides are regulated by federal and state governments. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) reserves for the federal government authority over pesticide
labeling. States can adopt stricter labeling requirements and can effectively ban sale and use of
pesticides that do not meet state health or safety standards.1 For 51 years, California has reserved
regulation of pesticides for the state only, preempting local regulation.2 This preemption has
been ratified and confirmed in subsequent court decisions and legislation. However, County
Agricultural Commissioners work to enforce the state laws. Local governments may regulate or
restrict pesticide use in their own operations, including use in municipal buildings or parks.34
Broad direction. This resolution would direct the League to take a position allowing broad local
discretion over pesticide regulation in general. Because the regulation of anticoagulant
rodenticides is largely based in science, additional or outside expertise may be needed to ensure
full understanding of the science behind rodent control methods. The resolution itself is not
limited to allowing local governments to regulate anticoagulant rodenticides, which this
resolution otherwise targets.
Rodent control methods. There are numerous methods of controlling rodents, including lethal
traps, live traps, and poison baits. There are two generations of rodenticide poisons because after
rodents became resistant to the first generation, the second was developed. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) provides the following information below related
to the science and use of anticoagulant rodenticides:
Most of the rodenticides used today are anticoagulant compounds that interfere with
blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding. Deaths typically occur between
four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait.
First-generation anticoagulants include the anticoagulants that were developed as

rodenticides before 1970. These compounds are much more toxic when feeding occurs on
several successive days rather than on one day only. Chlorpophacinone, diphacinone and
warfarin are first-generation anticoagulants that are registered to control rats and mice in
the United States.
Second-generation anticoagulants were developed beginning in the 1970s to control

rodents that are resistant to first-generation anticoagulants. Second-generation
anticoagulants also are more likely than first-generation anticoagulants to be able to kill
after a single night's feeding. These compounds kill over a similar course of time but tend
to remain in animal tissues longer than do first-generation ones. These properties mean
that second-generation products pose greater risks to nontarget species that might feed on
bait only once or that might feed upon animals that have eaten the bait. Due to these
1
California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), A Guide to Pesticide Regulation in California: 2017
Update, pg. 9, https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf.
2
California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 (1967).
3
CDPR, A Guide to Pesticide Regulation in California: 2017 Update, pg. 9,
https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf.
4
County Agricultural Commissioners work with CDPR to enforce state laws. CDPR, A Guide to Pesticide
Regulation in California: 2017 Update, pg. 13, https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf.
21
ATTACHMENT 1
risks, second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides no longer are registered for use in

products geared toward consumers and are registered only for the commercial pest
control and structural pest control markets. Second-generation anticoagulants registered
in the United States include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.
Other rodenticides that currently are registered to control mice include bromethalin,
cholecalciferol and zinc phosphide. These compounds are not anticoagulants. Each is
toxic in other ways.5
Legislative attempts to ban. Several legislative measures have been introduced to ban the use of
certain anticoagulant rodenticides (AB 1687, Bloom, 2017. AB 2596, Bloom, 2016). However,
neither of these measures were heard and failed to pass key legislative deadlines.
Existing League Policy:

The League does not have policy related to pesticides or rodenticides.
Related to federal regulation, League policy states:

 The League supports flexibility for state and local government to enact environmental
and other standard or mandates that are stronger than the federal standards. However, the
League reserves the right to question or oppose stronger standards on the merits. The
League also opposes legislation that prohibits state and local governments from enacting
stricter standards.
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received: William Koehler, Mayor of Agoura Hills;
Fred Gaines, Mayor of Calabasas; Brett Lee, Mayor Pro Tem of Davis; Catherine Carlton, Menlo
Park City Council Member; Janice Parvin, Mayor of Moorpark; Suza Francina, Ojai City
Council Member; Carmen Ramirez, Oxnard City Council Member; Tom Butt, Mayor of
Richmond; Lindsey Horvath, West Hollywood City Council Member
5
U.S. EPA, Restrictions on Rodenticide Products, https://www.epa.gov/rodenticides/restrictions-rodenticide-
products
22
ATTACHMENT 1
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 1
Local Municipal Authority, Control and Revenue
23
ATTACHMENT 1
24
ATTACHMENT 1
25
ATTACHMENT 1
26
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Steven Scharf <[email protected]>

Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2018 8:34 PM
To: Cindy Owens
Subject: Letter of Support for California League of Cities Resolution
Dear Ms. Cowens,
I was forwarded your email requesting support for a resolution in support of "the preparation
of a ballot measure and/or state constitutional amendment that would strengthen local
authority and preserve the role of local democracy at the local level as the state
legislature is continually attempting to override the local authority of cities."
Speaking only for myself, and not on behalf of the City of Cupertino or other Cupertino City
Council Members, I hereby give my support for such a measure. You may use my name as a
supporter.
Sincerely,
Steven Scharf
Cupertino City Council Member
27
ATTACHMENT 1
cif
1600 Huntington Drive I
Duqrrf,e
Duarte, CA 91010 | nr.. 626.357.7ggt I nu" 626.358.0018 | o* u.u...rrduarte.com
July 10,2018 Mayor

John Fasana
League of California Cities Mayor Pro Tern
1400 K Street, Suite 400 Liz Reilly
Sacramento, CA 95814
Councilmernbers
Margaret E. Finlay
2018 CONT'ERENCE RESOLUTION TO RESPOND TOTIIE INCREASING Samuel Kang
VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL MUNICIPAL AUTrrORrTy, CONTROL, Tzeitel Paras-Caracci
AIID REVENUE
City Manager
Dear Committee: Darrell J. George
The City of Duarte supports the League of California Cities ("League") Annual Conference Resolution
proposed by the City of Beverly Hills calling for the League to explore the preparation of a ballot measure
that would provide the State's voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and preserve the
role of local democracy.
State legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 by the legislature has continually threatened to erode local
control. Whether this was Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) or the more
recently introduced Senate Bill827 (Wiener) (Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus) that was
defeated in Committee, legislatures are continually introducing proposals that impinge on the ability of a
local government to institute discretionary legislation that is responsive to the needs of their constituents.
More recently, a State ballot initiative was introduced that would have made increasing fees and passing
taxes more onerous on local jurisdictions due to the interest of powerful interest groups. This interest group
successfully negotiated an Assembly Bill that banned constituents in local jurisdictions from passing a soda
tax for twelve years, trumping the will of the people should they wish to support such a measure. However,
as a result of the passage of that Assembly Bill, the State ballot initiative was pulled from the November
2018 ballot.
These continual incursions into local control by the State legislature and powerful interest groups should be
prohibited in areas where it is unwarranted, and does not best serve the unique communities that make up the
State of California.
The passage of the proposed resolution by the City of Beverly Hills would provide direction to the League
to pursue a ballot measure andlor constitutional amendment that would strengthen local democracy and
authority. For these reasons, the City of Duarte strongly supports this resolution.
Sincerely,
'-ra'
4<{<
o
Liz Reilly
Mayor Pro Tem
cc: Vice Mayor John Mirisch, City of Beverly Hills
28
ATTACHMENT 1
29
ATTACHMENT 1
30
ATTACHMENT 1
31
DocuSign Envelope ID: 48D4AEF4-48B3-442A-A3E1 -12DFA5002A14 ATTACHMENT 1
Ci!yof Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
July 11, 2018

League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Re: EXPLORING A RESOLUTION TO RESPOND TO INCREASING VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
Dear Committee Members:
As one Councilmember of the City of Palo Alto, and in my individual capacity and not on behalf of the Council as a
body, or the City, I write to support the League of California Cities ("League") Annual Conference Resolution
proposed by the City of Beverly Hills. This resolution asks the League to explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment that would provide voters an opportunity to further strengthen local
authority and preserve the role of local democracy. If the resolution passes, I encourage the League to ensure any
potential measure includes both charter and general law cities.
State legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 has continually threatened to erode local control. Whether this
was SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities or the more recently introduced SB 827 (Wiener)
Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus that was defeated in Committee, legislatures are continually
introducing proposals that impinge on the ability of a local government to institute discretionary legislation that is
responsive to the needs of their constituents.
More recently, a state ballot initiative was introduced that would have made increasing fees and passing taxes
more onerous on local jurisdictions due to the interest of powerful interest groups. This interest group successfully
negotiated an Assembly Bill that banned on constituents in local jurisdictions from passing a soda tax for twelve
years; trumping the will of the people should they wish to support such a measure. However, as a result the
passage of that Assembly Bill, the state ballot initiative was pulled from the November 2018 ballot.
These continual incursions into local control by state legislature, and powerful interest groups, should be
prohibited in areas where it is unwarranted and does not best serve the unique communities that make up the
state of California.
The passage of the proposed resolution by the City of Beverly Hills would provide direction to t he League to pursue
a ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment that would strengthen local democracy and authority. For
these reasons I support this resolution.
Sincerely,
r:--"'
L!.:!!::~
Lydia Kou
Councilmember, City of Palo Alto
cc:
Palo Alto City Council
Mayor John Mirisch, City of Beverly Hills
James Keene, Palo Alt o Cit y Manager
P.O . Box 10250

Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
32
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine.
ATTACHMENT 1
33
ATTACHMENT 1
34
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Michael Goldman <[email protected]>

Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 4:37 PM
To: Cindy Owens
Subject: Letter of Support for California League of Cities Resolution
Dear Ms. Cowens,
I was forwarded your email requesting support for a resolution in support of " the
preparation of a ballot measure and/or state constitutional amendment that
would strengthen local authority and preserve the role of local democracy at
the local level as the state legislature is continually attempting to override the
local authority of cities."
Speaking solely on my own behalf, I hereby give my whole-hearted support for such a
measure. The essence of democracy is the control by the people of their community. As
public servants, we elected officials serve the democratically expressed will of the
public.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Goldman
Sunnyvale City Council, Seat 7
35
ATTACHMENT 1
36
ATTACHMENT 1
37
ATTACHMENT 1
38
ATTACHMENT 1
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 2
Repeal Preemption of Regulating Pesticides
39
ATTACHMENT 1
40
ATTACHMENT 1
41
ATTACHMENT 1
42
ATTACHMENT 1
July 13, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President

1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: A Resolution of the League of California Cities Declaring Its Commitment to Support the
Repeal of Preemption in California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 That Prevents
Local Governments from Regulating Pesticides
Dear President Garbarino:
Anticoagulant rodenticides poison unintended targets, including predator wildlife in California

and pets that ingest the products. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-
target animals. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally
poisoned each year nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost
four years after this ban, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a
decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
Currently, State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides. In my official capacity as a city councilmember I support the
proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in California Food and Agriculture Code
Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the state of California with the authority to regulate
pesticides based on the local concerns in their communities. The State of California should
provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based
on their own individual local needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General
Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Brett Lee
Mayor Pro Tem
43
ATTACHMENT 1
July 5, 2018

1400 K Street
RE: RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS COMMITMENT TO

SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE §
11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Empty
Dear President Garbarino, Empty
Anticoagulant rodenticides are products that are poisoning 80% to 90% of predator wildlife in our
cities and throughout California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target
animals - including pets - that ingest the products either directly or from consuming poisoned
rodents. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally poisoned
each year nationwide.
My own mother lost a dearly loved pet dog, who was poisoned when it ate a poisoned rat!
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost four
years after this ban, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease
in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
State law now preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides. I support the proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in
California Food and Agriculture Code Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the state of
California with the authority to regulate pesticides based on the local concerns in their
communities. The State of California should provide cities with the authority to regulate the use
of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their own individual local needs.
Sincerely,
Catherine Carlton
Environmental Committee Vice Chair for the League of California Cities
44
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
Main City Phone Number (805) 517-6200 | Fax (805) 532-2205 | [email protected]
July 12, 2018

1400 K Street
RE: RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS

Dear President Garbarino:
The City of Moorpark supports the above referenced resolution being brought to a vote at the
upcoming League of California Cities Conference on September 14, 2018.
As a community surrounded by the beauty of the Santa Monica Mountains and its wildlife, the
City adopted a resolution in 2013 urging Moorpark residents and businesses to not use
anticoagulant rodenticides in Moorpark. In 2014, the City applauded passage of AB 2657,
which removed many second generation anticoagulant rodenticides from the state.
However, as we are all unfortunately aware, scientific research continues to find

anticoagulant rodenticides in non-target animals, including the natural predators that help
regulate rodent populations and endangered species throughout California. Accordingly, the
City has supported subsequent legislative proposals to ban all anticoagulant rodenticides
statewide, including AB 2422, which is currently stalled in the state legislature.
The City further believes that local governments should have the opportunity to regulate
pesticide usage within their jurisdictions if the communities they represent desire to do so.
Therefore, the City supports the above referenced resolution being brought to a vote.
Yours truly,
Janice Parvin
Mayor
JANICE S. PARVIN ROSEANN MIKOS, Ph.D. DAVID POLLOCK KEN SIMONS MARK VAN DAM
Mayor Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
45
ATTACHMENT
Resolution of the League of California Cities re: 1
Anticoagulant Rodenticides
Page 2
cc: City Council

City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Assistant to the City Manager
League of California Cities, Meg Desmond ([email protected])
City of Malibu, Mary Linden ([email protected])
46
ATTACHMENT 1
Councilmember Suza Francina

City of Ojai
401 South Ventura Street, Ojai, CA 93023
Email: [email protected]
Cell: 805 603 8635
July 9, 2018

1400 K Street
RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS

Dear President Garbarino,
Anticoagulant rodenticides are products that are poisoning 80 to 90% of predator wildlife in
California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target animals including
pets that ingest the products either directly or from consuming poisoned rodents. In addition,
approximately 10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally poisoned each year
nationwide.
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost
four years after this ban, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a
decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
Currently, State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides. In my official capacity as a city councilmember I support the
proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in California Food and Agriculture Code
Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the state of California with the authority to regulate
pesticides based on the local concerns in their communities. The State of California should
provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based
on their own individual local needs.
Sincerely,
Suza Francina
Councilmember, City of Ojai
47
ATTACHMENT 1
July 12, 2018

1400 K Street
RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS

I write as one council member of the City of Oxnard regarding the state law that
preempts general law cities such as ours from regulating the use of pesticides. Our
city is heavily impacted with environmental burdens associated with pesticide use
as well as other industrial toxins, which affect the health of the people, wildlife and
our environment. Oxnard residents are requesting that the use of pesticides in our
public spaces be curtailed and restricted. This would include anticoagulant
rodenticides, products that are poisoning 80 to 90% of predator wildlife in
California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target
animals including pets that ingest the products either directly or from consuming
poisoned rodents. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age of six
are accidentally poisoned each year nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase

and use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite
collecting data for almost four years after this ban, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant
rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
Currently, State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of
pesticides, including anticoagulant rodenticides. In my official capacity as a city
councilmember I support the proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause
in California Food and Agriculture Code Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the
state of California with the authority to regulate pesticides based on the local
concerns in their communities. The State of California should provide cities with the
authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their
own individual local needs.
48
ATTACHMENT 1
Letter to President Garbarino

July 12, 2018
Page two
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities
General Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Thank you very much for your attention to this.
Sincerely,
Carmen Ramirez
49
ATTACHMENT 1
July 6, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino

President, League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Re: In Support to Repeal the Preemption in California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 that
Prevents Local Governments from regulating pesticides
Anticoagulant rodenticides poison 80% to 90% of predator wildlife in California. These poisons cause
painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target animals including pets that ingest the products either
directly or from consuming poisoned rodents. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age
of six are accidentally poisoned each year nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Currently, State law preempts general law cities
from regulating the use of pesticides, including anticoagulant rodenticides, which has minimized the
impact of the State’s ban. Despite collecting data for almost four years, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to
the partial restriction of the supply.
As a member of the League of California Cities’ Environmental Quality Policy Committee, I support the
proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in California Food and Agriculture Code Section
11501.1 to provide cities across the state of California with the authority to regulate pesticides based
on the local concerns in their communities. The State of California should provide cities with the
authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their own individual local
needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General Assembly at its
annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Mayor Tom Butt

Richmond, California
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 | 510-620-6503 | www.RichmondCAMayor.org

Home of Rosie the Riveter WWII Home50Front National Historical Park
ATTACHMENT 1
51

Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lakeport City Council Agenda Packet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKEPORT CITY COUNCIL

B. Public Works Director

1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov. Code §

A motion was made by Council Member Parlet, seconded by Council Member

B. Administrative Services Director

A motion was made by Council Member Barnes, seconded by Council Member

D. Public Works Director

8/31/2018 1:41:10 PM Page 1 of 3

8/31/2018 1:41:10 PM Page 2 of 3

Cash Account Count Amount

Transaction Type Count Amount

8/31/2018 1:41:10 PM Page 3 of 3

SUBMITTED Margaret Silveira, City Manager

PURPOSE OF REPORT: Information only Discussion Action Item

WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD:

Attachments: 1. Civil Grand Jury Report 2017/18

Meeting Date: 09/04/2018 Page 1 Agenda Item #IV.B.

Photograph by Mark Rothrock

Letter from the Foreperson of the Civil Grand Jury .............4

Letter from the Foreperson to the Public ……………………6

Grand Jury History and Organization.....................................8

Grand Jury Functions…………………….................................9

Final Report and Submission of Complaints ........................10

Grand Juror Selection Process and Qualifications ...............12

Responses to Findings and Recommendations.....................13

2017-2018 Laker County Grand Jury Roster .........................14

Final Reports by Committee

Ad Hoc – Emergency Operations Plan

Grand Jury Appendix

Grand Jury Application........................................................................150

Civil Grand Jury2017/2018

The Honorable Andrew S. Blum

Dear Judge Blum,

COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY

Response to Citizens Complaints:

Lake County Civil Grand Jury

GRAND JURY SELECTION PROCESS

Grand Jury Coordinator

Applications are also available at each Superior Court Clerk’s

QUALIFICATIONS FOR GRAND JURORS

Prospective Grand Jurors must possess the

A person is not legally required to serve if any of the following

Desirable qualifications for a Grand Juror include the following:

Responses to Findings and Recommendations

In past responses to the Final Reports submitted by the Grand

Name or Report: ______________

□ AGREE, has been implemented

Response to Citizens Complaints

2017-2018 Lake County Civil Grand Jury

Name Role City

The Lake County Quilt Trail

The Lake County Quilt Trail project—the first of its kind in

The Grand Jury is pleased to have been authorized to print the

Lake County Quilt Trail “State Park Bear Claw”

Budget and Finance

Lake County Quilt Trail “School House”

Poor Student Attendance Costs Lake County

In Lake County, efforts to coordinate public school attendance improvement have