Monterey County Grand Jury
2021-2022
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (8)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
Educators and classified staff in Monterey County are to be commended for their initiative and flexibility in meeting the challenges of COVID-19. From the MCOE Superintendent to the newest part-time classroom aide, county educational employees went beyond their job descriptions in meeting the needs of students and their families during the pandemic.
F2:
The Monterey County Superintendent of Schools is to be commended for proactive leadership in a time of crisis. Without such leadership, Monterey County’s educational response to COVID-19 would have been inadequate.
F3:
MCOE is to be commended for maintaining continuity of operations while increasing support services for school districts under the most challenging of circumstances.
F4:
All the donors who contributed to the Digital Equity Fund are to be commended for their generosity.
F5:
Administrators, teachers, and information technology staff in Monterey County are to be commended for making great strides in providing remote learning devices and solving internet access problems during the COVID-19 pandemic.
F6:
MCOE is working with all school districts to assure fiscal accountability and stewardship of the public’s education dollars. 45
F7:
MCOE’s service departments continue working diligently to provide support, guidance, training, and resources for all members of Monterey County’s educational community.
F8:
Despite a lack of preparedness at many levels of government, MCOE, school districts, and staff responded to the impact of the pandemic in a timely manner.
F9:
Monterey County successfully expanded internet connectivity due to the efforts of MCOE, industry partners, grant institutions, the Digital Task Force, and school district investment in technology.
F10:
There is increased collaboration and coordination among agencies that provide services and support, including the MCOE, Monterey County Behavioral Health, the Monterey County Health Department, internet partners, school districts, support providers, and community groups.
F11:
Administrators, teachers, parents, and students are all extremely concerned about students’ social-emotional issues arising from COVID-19.
F12:
Administrators, teachers, parents, and students are concerned about the learning loss that took place during the 2020-2021 school year. There is an urgent need for mitigation of such a loss.
F13:
There is the potential for significant fiscal disruption with the continuing loss of ADA and the end of additional federal funding occurring at the same time.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
School districts maintain a minimum level of one behavioral support staff member at each school site until the end of the 2025-2026 school year.
R2:
School districts maintain learning loss mitigation programs and extended learning opportunities until the end of the 2025-2026 school year.
R3:
MCOE should continue to closely monitor district LCAPs and budgets for the impacts of ADA loss and the end of emergency federal funding.
R4:
MCOE be forward thinking about its emergency plans.
R5:
MCOE should establish partnerships and internships with CSU Monterey Bay, MCBH, and industry partners to increase the number of mental health workers, teachers, substitutes, and bus drivers 46
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Monterey County does not have a Pandemic Response Plan that focuses on processes and procedures for addressing the public health needs of the public during a pandemic.
F2:
The Monterey County Health Department’s “Pandemic Influenza Plan” (last updated June 11, 2013) does not address how the Health Department would continue to provide essential county services to Monterey County during a pandemic crisis.
F3:
Monterey County did not use the existing AMC system to communicate public health information to the Monterey County residents and businesses subscribing to the service.
F4:
Monterey County’s EOC did not have sufficient certified speakers or translators to provide accurate and timely communication or messaging to the non-English speaking population in the County.
F5:
The County Health Department did not acknowledge its lead role and responsibilities as Incident Commander in the County EOC during a public health emergency.
F6:
The County Health Officer did not appear to use the full authority of his office to command and direct the County response to COVID-19 in Monterey County.
F7:
Monterey County did not follow the unified chain of command protocols of SEMS and ICS to communicate pandemic information to the public.
F8:
The County’s communications to the public did not address the needs of the hearing-impaired residents in Monterey County.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County use the AMC system to communicate public health emergency information to County residents by Dec. 31, 2022. 83
R2:
The County implement a public service campaign to significantly increase the number of County residents signed up for the AMC system by Dec. 31, 2022.
R3:
The County Health Officer and Health Department management staff receive SEMS and ICS training to provide the requisite education on the roles and responsibilities of the Health Department during medical disaster or pandemic incidents by Dec. 31, 2022.
R4:
All County personnel that are assigned to fulfill duties in the EOC must be trained in SEMS and ICS by Dec. 31, 2022.
R5:
Monterey County develop an Infectious Disease Response Plan that addresses the health and safety requirements of county residents during infectious disease outbreaks by June 30, 2023.
R6:
The County adopt the SEMS and ICS protocols for communicating public health emergency information to the public during an ongoing incident by Dec. 31, 2022.
R7:
Public communications during an emergency incident address effective communication with the hearing impaired and non-English speaking County residents by Sept. 1, 2022.
R8:
The CAO clarify the authority and responsibilities of the Health Department and Health Officer under State Law in responding to medical disaster or infectious disease outbreaks and memorialize them in emergency response plans by Dec. 31, 2022.
R9:
The County enter Memorandums of Understanding with all hospital systems in Monterey County to establish the terms and conditions for cooperation and resource allocation during a designated countywide medical disaster or infectious disease outbreak by Jun. 30, 2023.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The estimated price for finished cannabis product dropped from $1,600 per pound in 2020, to under $500 per pound in 2021, due to a glut in the state cannabis supply.
F2:
The major source of cannabis revenue in Monterey County comes from assessed square footage of cultivation.
F3:
Growers paid around $19 million in assessed taxes in 2021. An additional $1.4 million in taxes were collected from other cannabis businesses, including dispensaries processors, quality assurance testing, delivery, transportation, and disposal.
F4:
In the past five years, just under $70 million has been collected in Cannabis tax revenues.
F5:
Even with the glut of cannabis on the open market, Monterey County is still actively processing a nine-fold increase of provisional licenses over the active/complete licenses.
F6:
County FTEs (staff) have increased from 6 to 28 in fiscal 2021-22 involving multiple agencies that regulate, inspect legal cannabis, and enforce the eradication of illegal cannabis in the County.
F7:
The County Cannabis Program is the county regulatory infrastructure with a budget of $6.3 million, a third of the cannabis tax revenue in 2021.
F8:
Consumers also pay state Sales Tax, state Excise Tax, and county or city sales taxes which results in a four-fold increase in price compared to unlicensed/illegal cannabis.
F9:
Allocation of the Cannabis Tax/Assignment Fund (CTF) is difficult to track. The increase of property values due to requirements of the Cannabis Program has not been available to the public. 16
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Require the Monterey County Cannabis Program to provide a comprehensive annual report detailing all CTF revenues, allocations, and reserves. This report should include detailed information including budget and distributions to community service agencies. The Cannabis Program must publish its annual report on their website. Implementation by December 31, 2022.
R2:
Revise Monterey County Cannabis Program webpage to include easy-to-follow directions for accessing revenues and expenditures. Implementation by December 31, 2022.
R3:
Monterey County to monitor and report on improved property value and tax re- assessment due to Cannabis Compliance Regulations. Implementation by December 31, 2022.
R5:
Include in the Cannabis Program annual report, an accounting of all FTEs funded by the CTF. Implementation by December 31, 2022.
F10:
To help the passage of AUMA, the Board of Supervisors stated the new industry would bring new economic development and jobs to counter losses from NAFTA twenty-two years prior.
F11:
Monterey County did not hire an Economic Development Manager and staff until November 2021, five years after the Cannabis Program was established. The number of new jobs remains unknown.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Direct the Economic Development Manager to complete a study on new jobs created by the cannabis industry and its impact on the local economy. Implementation by June 30, 2023.
F12:
Many inspections do not operate in a consistent manner nor with a standardized check list.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Cannabis Program adopt a consistent process for inspection and check list. Implementation by December 31, 2022.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
MCCGJ found that MLHD conducted a comprehensive Strategic Plan for the District in the 2002 MCCGJ report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2022, MLHD contract with a qualified consultant to complete a comprehensive Business/Strategic/Marketing plan.
F2:
MCCGJ was unable to verify MLHD completed a comprehensive capital asset reserve study to establish capital reserves and replace aging District facilities over time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2022 MLHD contract with qualified consultant to conduct a comprehensive maintenance study and develop a replacement plan.
F3:
MHLD has not completed a comprehensive maintenance and replacement plan for the harbor facilities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By December 31,2022 MLHD should complete a plan to implement the district facilities and replacement plan.
R3:
By December 31, 2022 MLHD contract with qualified consultant to conduct a comprehensive maintenance study and develop a replacement plan.
F4:
MLHD maintenance is conducted on an “as needed” basis, reacting to verbal complaints from slip tenants or staff observations.
F5:
The Sea Engineering, Inc.” Post-Tsunami Report”, dated February 2, 2022, validated many of the MCCGJ findings.
F6:
MHLD lacks a formal process for reporting complaints received and/or data on the number, type, and resolution of complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By October 1, 2022, MLHD develop and adopt procedures to track complaints and tenant maintenance requests.
F7:
MCCGJ was unable to verify MLHD maintains a comprehensive maintenance log or database.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By October 1, 2022, MLHD develop and adopt procedures to track complaints and tenant maintenance requests.
F8:
MHLD fails to distribute copies of the 60 District Ordinances to all slip tenants. However, the District Ordinances are available on the district website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By October 1, 2022, MHLD distribute copies of all District Ordinances to all tenants, current and future.
F9:
MLHD fails to enforce District Ordinances uniformly.
F10:
MLHD lacks a formal process for tenants to submit requests and receive written board approval for personal modifications to the docks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 31, 2022, MHLD adopt a formal process for tenants to request dock modifications and approval by the board.
F11:
MLHD does not require tenants to procure boat liability insurance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By December 31, 2022, MHLD implement an ordinance requiring all slip tenants to show proof of valid boat liability insurance, naming MLHD as additionally insured.
F12:
MCCGJ observed boats are in disrepair at the harbor that may not be seaworthy.
F13:
MLHD lacks any pump out facilities, showers, laundry, or paved and stripped parking areas designated for tenants at North Harbor. 8
F14:
MCCGJ observed safety equipment (life rings and ropes) that are in disrepair and require replacement.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8:
By September 1, 2022, MHLD inspects all existing safety equipment and make repairs and replacements, as necessary. 9
R12:
By December 31, 2022, the MLHD install required safety equipment on the docks.
F15:
MCCGJ did not find safety ladders placed appropriately to allow people to get out of the water safely.
F16:
MLHD BOC fails to consistently post the board agenda outside South Harbor office and does not post in any location of North Harbor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By September 1, 2022, MLHD should post BOC meetings, agenda packets on the South Harbor bulletin board and in a prominent location at North Harbor. MLHD should post BOC meeting minutes in a timely manner to enhance transparency.
F17:
MLHD fails to update BOC agendas on the webpage in a timely fashion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By September 1, 2022, MLHD should post BOC meetings, agenda packets on the South Harbor bulletin board and in a prominent location at North Harbor. MLHD should post BOC meeting minutes in a timely manner to enhance transparency.
F18:
MCCGJ verified that current board members had received Brown Act classes, AB 1234 ethics training, and board member receiving governance training from the California Special Districts Association or other qualified organization.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By March 1, 2023, MHLD should require all board members to attend Brown Act classes, AB 1234 Ethics Training, and Board governance training.
F19:
MCCGJ found MLH experiences recurring failures of the pump-out facility, forcing slip tenants to sail to other harbors to clean out waste. MLH does not post notices of the outages nor when service would be available again.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
MLHD should ensure continuous operation of pump-out facilities available at the harbor.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R10:
By December 31, 2022, MLHD should form a committee with North and South harbor tenants.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Property values and tax allocations disproportionately underfund fire districts throughout Monterey County.
F2:
NCFPD tax revenue was drastically reduced when Duke Energy sold the decommissioned Moss Landing Power Plant.
F3:
In 2018, NCFPD annexed Monterey Regional Waste Management and Monterey One Water property with increased risk but no increase in tax revenue.
F4:
In 2020, NCFPD laid off six firefighters and considered closing one fire station due to budget constraints.
F5:
Voters in NCFPD had to enact a special assessment fee in 2021 to avert layoffs and station closures.
F6:
NCFPD fire stations are outdated and fire apparatus needs updating and/or replacement.
F7:
The number of service calls is similar between NCFPD and MCRFD. North County has only half the personnel and is responding with outdated equipment.
F8:
Automatic and mutual aid agreements alone are not sufficient to resolve fire coverage issues in the two districts.
F9:
Distinct differences of EMS services exist between NCFPD (EMTs) and MCRFD (Paramedics).
F10:
Though National Fire Standards recommend four firefighters per engine, NCFPD only staffs two and MCRFD three.
F11:
Consolidation could be supported if all stakeholders are actively involved in the planning process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
NCFPD and MCRFD hire an outside qualified consultant by December 31, 2022, to study the feasibility of consolidating the two districts. REQUIRED RESPONSE The following responses are required pursuant to Penal Code §933 and §933.05: From the following governing bodies within 90 days: • North County Fire Protection District
F12:
In consolidation, economies of scale (grant-writing, administrative costs, shared revenue, human resources) could benefit both districts. 15
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
NCFPD and MCRFD hire an outside qualified consultant by December 31, 2022, to study the feasibility of consolidating the two districts. REQUIRED RESPONSE The following responses are required pursuant to Penal Code §933 and §933.05: From the following governing bodies within 90 days: • North County Fire Protection District
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The advent of the Guardian RFID system provides a better process of tracking. It significantly reduces the likelihood of human error, negligence, and falsification of documentation of custody security and safety check procedures.
F2:
Weaknesses in the utilization of the video security camera system were involved in the lack of detection of all the escapes. The failure to utilize the video camera system to capture in progress escapes remains to this day.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Office hire an outside consultant to study the Jail’s video surveillance motion detection alerting system capabilities activation to maximize desired alarms and minimize unwanted ones. Implementation by July 1, 2023.
F3:
In both the November 2019 and January 2021 escapes, weaknesses in the physical security structures were involved. Some remedial changes were implemented to alleviate or at least greatly lessen the known weaknesses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Office immediately hire an outside consultant to perform an audit of physical security systems of the entire facility and implement remediations by July 1, 2023.
F4:
The long-awaited new structure’s addition to the Jail property holds promise of better security and safety for employees, inmates, and the public.
F5:
The new facility creates efficiency, relief from overcrowding, and reduces the need to escort inmates to ancillary and centralized services.
F6:
The 911 Dispatch Center has updated their notification procedures to mitigate lapses in communication of escapes from the Jail.
F7:
The Jail’s Operations Manual does not provide communication algorithms for varying levels of risk with escapes dependent upon each situation. 11
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Office and BOS agree on appropriate practices for notifications when Jail escapes occur, based upon levels of risk to the community. Complete by June 30, 2022.
F8:
The BOS does not have statutory powers to oversee the Sheriff’s Office. AB1185 provides an opportunity to address this issue since historically, the communication between the BOS and Sheriff’s Office has been trying at best.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The BOS and the Sheriff’s Office collaborate on the implementation of AB1185. Complete by Dec. 31, 2022
F9:
The Sheriff’s Office and Jail continue to have less than optimal staffing to meet the needs of both mandated Jail conditions and adequate field patrol staffing functions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The BOS approve funding for mandatory staffing in the jail each fiscal year, starting July 1, 2023.
R6:
The BOS approve funding for optimal patrol coverage in the County each fiscal year, starting July 1, 2023.
F10:
The Sheriff Office and Jail appear to be more reactive than proactive when addressing security weaknesses.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.