Santa Barbara County Courthouse

Conclusions 35

• CL1
  4 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury PARKING CITATION PAYMENT PROBLEMS There is no option to pay in person or with cash.
• CL2
  Parking citations are not processed in a timely manner.
• CL3
  Some citations were sent to a debt collection agency even though payment was made within statutory guidelines as required by California Vehicle Code § 40207.
• CL4
  The most recent annual contract renewal with the vendor, CN13914, expired June 30, 2013.
• CL5
  The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has no succession plan for the positions of Manager for Water/Sewer Operations or Controller.
• CL6
  The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has not enforced its delinquent account enforcement policy, CCSD Water Policy, Article 10 - Discontinuance of Service, 1-1003, Non-payment of Bills.
• CL7
  That the Cuyama Community Services District will need to increase its revenues to remain financially viable.
• CL8
  That the existing telephone system does not adequately support teleconferencing.
• CL9
  Required annual personnel performance reviews have not been conducted in accordance with Section XXIII of the Cuyama Community Services District’s Personnel Policy Manual.
• CL10
  The heavy workload for the Controller position impacts the timely completion of some required functions.
• CL11
  The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors does not receive any compensation.
• CL12
  No evidence could be found that a performance review of the contract was ever conducted.
• CL13
  The public needs to be informed of the need for and implementation of future water and wastewater rate increases.
• CL14
  The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has not enforced CCSD Policy 91- 1 regarding the personal use of District owned vehicles.
• CL15
  The Board of Directors has failed to follow its policy set forth in the Personnel Policy Manual Section XIV, Part 2 and allowed “Offensive, abusive, or persistent discourteous treatment of the public or fellow employees”. 16 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___
• CL16
  The Director may approve a minor change to an approved or issued Coastal Development Permit or Land Use Permit, or issued Zoning Clearance, subject to all of the following: a. The Director determines that the minor change substantially conforms to the approved plans and the originally approved or issued permit; b. There is no change in the use or scope of the development; c. The minor change does not result in a change to the Director’s conclusions regarding the project’s specific conformance to development standards and findings; d. The Coastal Development Permit, Land Use Permit or Zoning Clearance has not expired; and e. The minor change is exempt from Design Review in compliance with Section 35.82.070 (Design Review).
• CL17
  Where a minor change of an approved or issued Coastal Development Permit or Land Use Permit, or issued Zoning Clearance is approved, the permit or clearance shall have the same effective and expiration dates as the original permit or clearance and no additional public notice shall be required.
• CL18
  Where it cannot be determined that the minor change materially conforms to an approved or issued Coastal Development Permit or Land Use Permit or issued Zoning Clearance in compliance with the above criteria, a new Coastal Development Permit, Land Use Permit, or Zoning Clearance shall be required. 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 49 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY – GRADING CODE
• CL19
  The determination to allow a minor change to an approved or issued Coastal Development Permit or Land Use Permit, or issued Zoning Clearance is final and not subject to appeal, except that a decision on a request to revise a Coastal Development Permit which allows development defined as appealable development may be appealed in compliance with Chapter 35.102 (Appeals). Note: Also refer to Appendix E (Guidelines for Minor Changes to Coastal Development and Land Use Permits). SANTA BARBARA COUNTY LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 35, APPENDIX E GUIDELINES FOR MINOR CHANGES TO COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND LAND USE PERMITS The following guidelines shall be used by the Department to determine if a minor change to an approved or issued Coastal Development Permit or Land Use Permit can be allowed without requiring a new permit.
• CL20
  The change would not be counter to design direction provided by the applicable Board of Architectural Review.
• CL21
  If the site is one acre or less, the footprint of the structure may not be moved more than five percent closer to the property line. If the site is more than one acre, the footprint of the structure may not be moved more than 10 percent closer to the property line.
• CL22
  The change does not result in the removal of a specimen trees.
• CL23
  The change does not affect easements for trails, public access, or open space.
• CL24
  The change does not increase the required number of parking spaces. If the proposed “minor” change does not conform to the guidelines identified above, the applicant should apply for a new planning permit. 50 2015-16 County Santa Barbara Grand Jury LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE You Can’t Drink Paper Water SUMMARY The 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury (Jury) investigated the operations of the Cachuma Project. Surface water supplies from Lake Cachuma, Jameson and Gibraltar reservoirs, and the State Water Project during “normal” rainfall years, comprise the largest percentage of water used by the citizens of the South Coast of Santa Barbara County. Historically, Lake Cachuma alone has provided up to 85% of the water needs for approximately 340,000 acres of agriculture and 250,000 residents. Unlike groundwater, State Project Water, recycled wastewater, or desalinated water, the water from Lake Cachuma is a shared local resource and its use must be managed efficiently, cooperatively, and without regard to local political pressure. Under contractual agreement, Lake Cachuma’s water supply has been allocated to south coast residents with the goal of the supply withstanding a six to seven-year drought cycle. The lake was last full to the point of spilling in March 2011 and after four years, the lake was virtually dry. This reality indicates that the contract is outdated. The maximum supply of water on paper is not the actual supply available, and the supplies from Lake Cachuma are over allocated. The 1995 master contract1 between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency for water service from the Cachuma Project is up for renewal in
• CL25
  2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 99 LOS PRIETOS BOYS CAMP  Justice System Savings Per High School Graduate31 – Each high school graduate saves the State of California and local government an average $21,370 in justice system costs, and the Federal government saves an additional $10,580 in justice system costs. The statistics are even starker when broken down by gender and ethnicity. For example, each Hispanic male high school graduate saves the State of California and local government an average $33,870, and the Federal government saves an additional $16,590.  Cost to Victims – As discussed above, each cohort of high school dropouts causes $9.5 billion in costs to the victims of their collective crimes.32 31 Belfield & Levin, The Economic Losses from High School Dropouts in California, The California Dropout Research Project (August 2007), at p. 27 and Table 13. 32 Id. 100 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury CITY OF SANTA BARBARA CITY OF SANTA BARBARA Commissions, Committees, and Boards SUMMARY The 2015-2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) was asked to investigate potential conflicts of interest among the City of Santa Barbara's (City) appointed commissions, committees, and boards and the influence of their members on the City's policies. The City has functioning advisory groups to the City Council, Charter Boards, and Commissions required by Article VIII of the City Charter. The City also makes appointments to four groups created by California State law. The Jury looked into the very large number of these advisory groups, their responsibilities and their influence. The Jury considered the following questions: Do conflicts of interest exist; have some of these entities outlived their usefulness; do some of them have overlapping mandates? The Jury concluded that the answer to these questions is sometimes yes.
• CL26
  The 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found that the parking citation processing system used by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department does not meet the need for timely processing of citations. The contract with the vendor has not been formally reviewed for performance compliance and expired in 2013. The out-of-date processing practices have resulted in late fees being assessed inappropriately. There is no ability to pay a citation in person or with cash. This expired contract needs to be reviewed and potentially renewed. Performance compliance by the vendor needs to be performed by the SBSO. Citations need to be posted in a timely manner to allow individuals the maximum amount of time to pay before a late fee is added. Procedures and infrastructure need to be established to give individuals a cash payment option. Finally, the SBSO needs to consider conducting a survey to identify other vendors who could provide superior citation processing services. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 No evidence could be found that a performance review of the contract was ever conducted. Recommendation 1 That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office conduct regular performance reviews of the parking citation processing contract. Finding 2 4 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury PARKING CITATION PAYMENT PROBLEMS There is no option to pay in person or with cash. Recommendation 2 That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, in recognition of the need of some citizens to pay in cash, initiate a mechanism to pay in person or with cash. Finding 3 Parking citations are not processed in a timely manner. Recommendation 3 That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office develop procedures to ensure parking citations are processed in a timely manner. Finding 4 Some citations were sent to a debt collection agency even though payment was made within statutory guidelines as required by California Vehicle Code § 40207. Recommendation 4 That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office develop procedures to ensure that parking citations paid within statutory timelines are not sent to debt collection agencies. Finding 5 The most recent annual contract renewal with the vendor, CN13914, expired June 30, 2013. Recommendation 5 That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office enter into a new contract with a qualified vendor that will consistently process parking citations expeditiously. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Santa Barbara County Sheriff - Coroner – 60 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – No Response Required 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 5 PARKING CITATION PAYMENT PROBLEMS This Page Intentionally Blank 6 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Operating Under Difficult Circumstances SUMMARY For over 20 years the Cuyama Community Services District has managed to provide potable water and to safely dispose of sewage at reasonable cost. This was accomplished even though they were serving a small population in a remote location. In recent years, the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has encountered difficulty in retaining board members and filling vacancies. A number of required functions were not performed by the Board, which made an already difficult situation worse. This report assesses the Cuyama Community Services District’s operations and makes several recommendations where improvement is warranted. A major issue for the community is the impending retirement of the present Manager for Water/Sewer Operations. The district may need to redefine the Manager’s position and reevaluate staffing needs in order to ensure water and wastewater service to the community continues without interruption. As many small special districts in California have discovered, finding a qualified successor at an affordable salary level may be challenging. INTRODUCTION The 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) received a request to investigate the Cuyama Community Services District (CCSD) which provides water and sewer services to the town of New Cuyama. The Cuyama River runs along Highway 166 and borders Los Padres National Forest. The Cuyama Valley is an agricultural area, with some cattle grazing and oil drilling nearby. Because the Cuyama Valley is a flood basin for the Cuyama River, the majority of the original town was moved westward to New Cuyama in 1951. It has a sheriff’s substation, a fire department, library, community center; everything a small community needs to operate. Located 47 miles east of Santa Maria on Santa Barbara County’s northeast border, New Cuyama is an unincorporated area with a population of about 500 residents. In the 1950s, after oil was discovered, the Atlantic Richfield Company settled and developed the town of New Cuyama. It built the town, funded schools, and provided all utilities except electricity. The CCSD was formed in 1977 by LAFCO Resolution 77-554 and provides service to 226 water connections and 197 sewer connections.1 This district is under the direction of a five person elected Board of Directors (BOD) who are not compensated for their service. Full time staff includes a Manager for Water/Sewer Operations (Manager), a Controller, and an Assistant Operator. Part time employees include a relief secretary and two maintenance workers who are called in when 1 CCSD Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC), October 6, 2015 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 7 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT needed to complete specific projects. The current CCSD organizational structure is shown in Figure 1. CCSD Customers Board of Directors Manager, Water & Controller Sewer Operations Assistant Maintenance Relief Operator Worker Secretary Assistant Maintenance Worker Figure 1. Cuyama Community Services District Structure An analysis conducted in 2013 by the US Geological Survey2 indicates that the Cuyama Aquifer is large (230 sq. mi), but is currently being over drafted and drawn down, as are many other California aquifers. The great majority of the water drawn is for agricultural uses outside of the CCSD service boundaries. Total consumption from the aquifer is about 65,000 acre-feet/per year (1 acre-foot equals 326,000 gallons). The customers of the CCSD use about 600 acre-feet (less than 1%). For all intents and purposes, no actions taken by the CCSD to limit water usage would have a measureable effect on the rate at which the Cuyama Aquifer is being over drafted. The local high school and public library operate their own wells. The water from those wells is untreated, and used only for landscaping purposes. Treated drinking water is provided by the CCSD. The refurbished Joseph Centeno Cuyama Aquatic Center is expected to be returned to use in 2016. Water and sewage treatment for this facility will be provided by the CCSD. Water quality became an issue in January 2006 when new federal standards for arsenic 2USGS, Geology, Water-Quality, Hydrology, and Geomechanics of the Cuyama Valley Groundwater Basin, California, 2008–12, Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5108 8 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ concentrations in drinking water went into effect. The CCSD was required to upgrade its treatment process to reduce arsenic concentrations to the new federal standard. As of September 2014, the Arsenic Exceedance Remediation Project was completed. The arsenic removal plant is operating and arsenic concentrations are below the new 10 ppb water quality standard. Potential problems with the water system are disclosed promptly and communications with the State Department of Water Resources are regular and cooperative.
• CL27
  New Cuyama has evolved from an "oil town" founded in the early 1950s by one company into the sparsely populated "outback" community seen today. Over the past four decades, water and sewer services have been provided efficiently and economically to the residents of the town by the Cuyama Community Services District. New regulations, the reality of serving less than 300 connections, and generally low household incomes have been challenges the district has addressed quite well. This is to be commended. However, the investigation by the 2015 - 2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found that there are a number of areas in which the district is not performing adequately. Many of the issues which need to be addressed by the Board of Directors of the Cuyama Community Services District involve enforcing policies that already exist in their Personnel Policy Manual and elsewhere. These include the enforcement of their policies on: discontinuance of service, the personal use of district owned vehicles, and the prohibition of offensive, abusive, or persistent discourteous treatment of the public or fellow employees. The Board of Directors must also reevaluate their staffing needs and develop a succession plan to replace key employees. Lastly, the Board of Directors needs to follow the Rural Community Assistance Corporation’s recommendations to raise water and wastewater rates as stated in its October 2015 study. To assure the legal and financial viability of the Cuyama Community Services District and its employees, the Board of Directors must address and correct these and all other deficiencies detailed in this report. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The meeting minutes are far too detailed and are not submitted to and approved by the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors in a timely manner. Recommendation 1 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 15 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors require that the minutes be succinct and submitted for acceptance at the next scheduled meeting. Finding 2 Neither the Board of Directors nor key employees have ever attended ethics training courses. The Board of Directors has the authority to mandate ethics training for key employees. Recommendation 2 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors include biennial ethics training within the job descriptions of key employees including the Manager of Water/Sewer Operations and the Controller. Finding 3 No job descriptions exist for Assistant Operator, Relief Secretary, Maintenance Worker, and Assistant Maintenance Worker. Recommendation 3 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors ensure job descriptions are prepared for all employees. Finding 4 Job descriptions for Manager for Water/Sewer Operations and Controller have not been updated for several years. Recommendation 4a That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors require the existing but obsolete job description for Manager for Water/Sewer Operations be updated to include licensing requirements professional qualifications, and response time expectations, at a minimum. Recommendation 4b That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors require the existing but obsolete job description for the Controller be updated. Finding 5 The Cuyama Community Services District Personnel Policy Manual has no policy addressing conflicts of interest such as nepotism. Recommendation 5 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors add a policy on conflicts of interest such as nepotism to its Personnel Practices Manual. Finding 6 The Board of Directors has failed to follow its policy set forth in the Personnel Policy Manual Section XIV, Part 2 and allowed “Offensive, abusive, or persistent discourteous treatment of the public or fellow employees”. 16 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ Recommendation 6 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors enforce Section XIV (Disciplinary Actions Against Employees) Part 2 of its Personnel Policy Manual. Finding 7 The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has no succession plan for the positions of Manager for Water/Sewer Operations or Controller. Recommendation 7 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors establish an orderly succession plan for the positions of Manager for Water/Sewer Operations and Controller. Finding 8 Required annual personnel performance reviews have not been conducted in accordance with Section XXIII of the Cuyama Community Services District’s Personnel Policy Manual. Recommendation 8 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors and Manager for Water/Sewer Operations conduct annual performance reviews of all employees. Finding 9 The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has not enforced its delinquent account enforcement policy, CCSD Water Policy, Article 10 - Discontinuance of Service, 1-1003, Non-payment of Bills. Recommendation 9 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors enforce its delinquent accounts collection policy. Finding 10 That the Cuyama Community Services District will need to increase its revenues to remain financially viable. Recommendation 10 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors implement the rate increases recommended in the October 2015 CCSD Water and Wastewater Rate Study by the Rural Community Assistance Corporation. Finding 11 The public needs to be informed of the need for and implementation of future water and wastewater rate increases. Recommendation 11 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors initiate a public education program regarding the need for water and wastewater rate increases. 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 17 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Finding 12 That the existing telephone system does not adequately support teleconferencing. Recommendation 12 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors ensure an adequate teleconferencing system is available. Finding 13 The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has not enforced CCSD Policy 91- 1 regarding the personal use of District owned vehicles. Recommendation 13 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors enforce its existing policy regarding the personal use of District owned vehicles. Finding 14 The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors does not receive any compensation. Recommendation 14 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors consider compensating board members. Finding 15 The heavy workload for the Controller position impacts the timely completion of some required functions. Recommendation 15 That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors make more frequent use of the Relief Secretary to reduce the workload of the Controller. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors– 90 days Findings 1 through 15 Recommendations 1 through 15 The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – No Response Required 18 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ APPENDICES APPENDIX A Job Descriptions APPENDIX B Personnel Policy Manual APPENDIX C Resignation Letters of Board Members and Formal Complaint APPENDIX D Work Environment Data APPENDIX E CCSD Policies 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 19 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT APPENDIX A Job Descriptions 20 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 21 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 22 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ APPENDIX B Personnel Policy Manual 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 23 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 24 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 25 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 26 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 27 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT APPENDIX C Resignation Letters of Board Members and Formal Complaint 28 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 29 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 30 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 31 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 32 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ APPENDIX D Work Environment Data The following are excerpts from meeting minutes and opinions from interviews conducted by the Jury: a. … becomes disrespectful and disruptive when the discussion does not go their way. b. …no employee should be subjected to the hostile work environment and verbal abuse… c. …that part of the manual dealing with verbal abuse [Section XIV. Disciplinary Actions 2.] has been violated d. Board members have observed verbal abuse. e. Some board members have resigned due to the hostile environment at board meetings. f. … an atmosphere of intimidation exists in the office and staff will not call 911 when necessary… g. …a community services district crippled by intimidation…. h. …became utterly and completely irrational… i. …the board is an inconvenience… j. …a former board member interrupts board meetings and yells… k. The minutes from the November 19, 2015 Board meeting, when a formal complaint was filed, include the following: “At this time, XXXXXXXXXX addressed the Board and gave her reason for attending the board meeting. She reported that she came to hear the Board’s plan in response to the employee complaint. XXXXXXX informed the current Board Members and guests that she had previously served on the Board of Directors and was aware of the XXXXXXXXX prior conduct. She stated that she left the Board because of her own personal experiences with XXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX proceeded to encourage the Board to do the right thing in response to the complaint, and she expressed the need for accountability.” 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 33 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT APPENDIX E CCSD Policies 34 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 35 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 36 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY – GRADING CODE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY – GRADING CODE Where the Dozer Meets the Dirt Poorly Defined and Unevenly Enforced SUMMARY In accordance with Penal Code Section 925, the 2015-2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) investigated the process by which grading permits in Santa Barbara County are required, granted, or denied. Additionally, the Jury examined whether the inspection process and final results are consistent with the original permits issued. The Jury found that the Santa Barbara County Grading Code, Chapter 14 and the post approval procedures set forth in Chapter 35 include exemptions and practices that are ambiguous and subject to interpretation by the local Field Grading Inspectors. These discretionary interpretations have led to different standards being applied to similarly situated parcels. Permit revisions complicate the issue and lack the clarity necessary for due process. The Jury recommends that the Code and permitting process be modified to eliminate the ambiguities for the benefit of both the inspectors and landowners.
• CL28
  The 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury, made up of 19 citizens from throughout the County with a variety of backgrounds and a genuine interest in the operations of government within the County of Santa Barbara, found it difficult to unravel the complex web of water agencies, water contracts, water regulations, water purchases, water sales, water portfolios, and water management plans that are designed to supply a safe and secure water source to all people living on the South Coast. This report attempts to unravel portions of this web and to address those issues deemed most pressing and most able to be improved with a focus on the importance of Lake Cachuma. As the residents of the South Coast of Santa Barbara County come to terms with an ever limited supply of water for an ever growing community, the value of every drop of water has come to be appreciated. The Jury recommends that local water agencies work cooperatively to craft a new master contract with periodic mandatory review and revision clauses between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency for the operations of Lake Cachuma and include: the lost water storage capacity due to siltation, the increased demand for 64 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE downstream habitat preservation, and the reality of more frequent multiyear droughts. The Jury also recommends that each member unit of the Cachuma Project improve their individual water portfolio and reassess their process of approving new water service in light of more limited water supply. For close to two centuries, providing a reliable and sufficient water supply to the residents and agriculture of Santa Barbara County has been a challenge. This challenge has been met year after year by sometimes contentious meetings as public officials try to come to terms with the stress of making sure their constituents have a safe and sufficient supply of water at a reasonable cost. Meeting this challenge in the future with the possibility of increasing multi-year droughts, will be ever more difficult. With the predicted population increase, the demands on this limited resource will also increase. Approximately 250,000 people, many without knowing it, are reliant on their local elected water officials and staff to work together to ensure that wherever they live in Santa Barbara County and regardless of their income, they will have enough water for their basic human needs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 Siltation is continuing to decrease the storage capacity and the safe yield of Lake Cachuma as defined in United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995. Recommendation 1 That the safe yield from Lake Cachuma as defined in United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995, be recalculated and used in the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency taking into account lost storage capacity due to siltation. Finding 2 Downstream water rights are protected in the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 and must be considered when calculating the safe yield. Recommendation 2 That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency must continue to emphasize the importance of downstream water rights and be used in the calculations of the safe yield. 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 65 LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE Finding 3 The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 was written prior to the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion and does not include the requirement to release water under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act. Recommendation 3a That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include the required water releases for the protection of fish habitat under the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion. Recommendation 3b That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency add language to include the amount of water that will be required to be released by the new Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Services when it is released. Finding 4 The 2011-2016 drought is far worse than the “design drought” of 1947-1952 used in the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 for Lake Cachuma. Recommendation 4 That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency calculate new water entitlements for member units using the current 2011-2016 worst case drought as its “design drought”. Finding 5 The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 extending from 1995 to 2020 (25 years) is too long a period and includes no review and revision clauses to recalculate the “safe yield” of the Cachuma Project. Recommendation 5a That the term of the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be less than 25 years in length. Recommendation 5b That the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include periodic mandatory review and revision clauses on the order of every five or six years to recalculate the “safe yield” of Lake Cachuma and to make any other necessary contract changes. 66 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE Finding 6 Safe yield from Lake Cachuma in the current United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 is based on a static volume per year. Recommendation 6 That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include a new safe yield in Year One after Lake Cachuma spills, and, in subsequent years, use either a sliding scale or specify mandatory reductions. Finding 7 The Montecito Water District does not have an updated Urban Water Management Plan. Recommendation 7 That the Montecito Water District update its Urban Water Management Plan. Finding 8 Conservation policies and drought declarations differ from one member unit to another, possibly confusing water users. Recommendation 8a That the member units, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, create consistent policies and procedures that govern conservation efforts especially during times of a severe drought and that these are documented in the subcontracts between the Santa Barbara County Water Agency and the member units. Recommendation 8b That the policies and procedures in Recommendation 8a be announced to the community by all member units at the same time. Finding 9 The City of Santa Barbara has started to rebuild its desalination facility and has been in intermittent discussions with the Montecito Water District on sharing use of the facility. Recommendation 9 That the City of Santa Barbara and the Montecito Water District continue discussions on options that could optimize the desalination facility as a regional one. Finding 10 The Carpinteria Valley Water District no longer participates in the Cachuma Conservation Release Board yet continues to reap the benefits of negotiations paid for by the remaining agencies. Recommendation 10 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 67 LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE That the Carpinteria Valley Water District, as a benefiting party, rejoin and participate in the Cachuma Conservation Release Board. Finding 11 Member units approve new water service by issuing, can and will serve letters, intent to serve letters, water service availability documents, or other documents, without expiration dates to citizens and developers. Recommendation 11 That all member units include expiration dates for their water service approval documents. Finding 12 Member units utilize can and will serve letters, intent to serve letters, water service availability documents, or other documents to grant new water service that are approved based on water availability during a “normal” year’s water supply. Recommendation 12 That member units change their policies to begin approving new water service on the water available during a “worst case” drought year. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 8a, 8b Carpinteria Valley Water District Board of Directors – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 8a, 8b, 10, 11, and 12 City of Santa Barbara City Council – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 8a, 8b, 9, 10, 11, and 12 Goleta Water District Board of Directors – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 8a, 8b, 10, 11, and 12 Montecito Water District Board of Directors – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8a, 8b, 9, 10, 11, and 12 68 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District ID No. 1 Board of Directors – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 8a, 8b, 11, and 12 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 69 LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE This Page Intentionally Blank 70 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT INTRODUCTION Under California Penal Code Section 919(b), county grand juries “…shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” This report contains results of inspections of the jails, detention facilities, and the coroner’s facility by the 2015-2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury). These facilities include the following categories: Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office:  Coroner’s Office  Santa Barbara County Main Jail Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Substations:  Santa Maria Sheriff’s Substation  Isla Vista Foot Patrol Substation  New Cuyama Substation  Solvang Substation  Lompoc Substation Court Holding Facilities:  Santa Barbara Court Holding Facility, Figueroa Street  Santa Maria Court Holding Facility, Cook Street  Lompoc Court Holding Facility, Cypress Avenue Santa Barbara County Probation Department:  La Posada Juvenile Hall, Santa Barbara  Los Prietos Boys Camp  Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Center, Santa Maria Municipal Jails:  City of Lompoc Jail  City of Santa Barbara Jail  City of Santa Maria Jail  City of Guadalupe “Secure Bench”
• CL29
  The 2015-2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury wishes to express its appreciation to the law enforcement officers and support personnel that aided the Jury in the inspections of the detention facilities within Santa Barbara County. The Grand Jury inspected detention facilities throughout Santa Barbara County and was impressed with the new City of Santa Maria Police Station. However, the Grand Jury found that some of the issues identified in past years continue to be unresolved, such as overcrowding at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail, and the dismal and unhealthy condition of the Coroner’s Office facility. In addition, there were several new areas identified by this year’s Jury that need improvement, such as the police department facility in Lompoc and the Lompoc Court holding facility. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The drug drop box at the Santa Maria Sheriff’s Substation was not properly maintained. Recommendation 1 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s staff regularly monitor and maintain the new drug drop off boxes throughout the County. 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 79 DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT Finding 2 The Coroner’s Office urgently needs a new facility. Recommendation 2 That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors immediately allocate funding for a new facility. Finding 3 The Lompoc Court Holding Facility does not have recording capability on its video surveillance system. Recommendation 3 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff obtain and install video recording equipment in the Lompoc Court Holding Facility. Finding 4 The Lompoc Police Department refrigerated storage for evidence is inadequate. Recommendation 4 That the Lompoc City Council provide funding for the Police Department to purchase commercial grade refrigeration and freezer units that will meet the current and future needs for evidence storage. Finding 5 The City of Lompoc’s Police Department building is inadequate for its operational needs. Recommendation 5 That the Lompoc City Council update or replace the Police Department building. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – 90 days Finding 2 Recommendation 2 Santa Barbara County Sheriff – 60 days Findings 1 and 3 Recommendations 1 and 3 80 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT City of Lompoc City Council – 90 days Findings 4 and 5 Recommendations 4 and 5 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 81 DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT This Page Intentionally Blank 82 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOS PRIETOS BOYS CAMP LOS PRIETOS BOYS CAMP EFFECTIVE, BUT UNDERUTILIZED SUMMARY The following report is issued by the 2015 – 2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury regarding the operation of the Los Prietos Boys Camp (LPBC). The Jury found that the facility is well-run and constitutes a major community asset. The Jury also found that the facility is currently operating well below its maximum capacity and recommends that more youth could be served for minimal additional cost. Presently, the LPBC is not open to female juveniles. As the number of female juveniles in incarceration has increased in recent months, the LPBC could be expanded to include them in this program. The Jury found that there is a mentoring program in place for youthful offenders who live in the South County. A similar program should be made available to those who live in the North County. INTRODUCTION In January 2016, several members of the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) made a scheduled visit to the Los Prietos Boys Camp (LPBC) as part of its annual charge under the California Penal Code, Section 919 (b), to “inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” Throughout the visit, jurors were accompanied by the Director of Los Prietos Boys Camp (Director). Jurors questioned staff and some youth as well as the Director. All were responsive to questions the jurors asked. The Director made a presentation and provided an Informational Packet describing the curriculum including several ongoing Programs, Educational, Vocational, and Fine Arts/Special Activities. LPBC is a seven day-a-week, 24 hour a day minimum security correctional and treatment facility owned by the County of Santa Barbara (County). The LPBC is located on 17 acres in the Los Padres National Forest, 20 miles north of the City of Santa Barbara. The LPBC is operated by the County Probation Department and provides residential services to selected medium and high risk male offenders, ages 13 to 18. These offenders are considered wards of the Juvenile Court and are sent to LPBC for varying periods of time, usually between 120 and 180 days. Established in 1944, the LPBC now has a maximum capacity of 96 youth.
• CL30
  The 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) determined that there have been inconsistencies in the intake screening process at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail (Jail). The Jury finds the medical prescreening questionnaire is not sufficient for Santa Barbara County Sheriff Office (SBSO) staff to determine if an arrestee has major medical concerns. SBSO staff receive minimal medical training annually. There has been a lack of SBSO oversight of Corizon Health (Corizon) medical staff to ensure the orderly, safe, and healthy intake of arrestees into the Jail. There has been a failure of SBSO staff to consistently follow their own intake procedure. According to SBSO staff, they are already addressing some of these issues. A new Corizon Health Services Administrator (HSA) has been hired recently. The HSA is in the process of making changes that are addressing deficiencies in the medical intake procedure. Prior to the release of this report, the Jury learned that the SBSO staff are no longer conducting medical intake screenings. Corizon Registered Nurses are currently conducting all prescreening medical intake procedures. This process should continue and be documented on the medical process overview chart. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 111 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL Finding 1 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff is using an antiquated paper system for maintaining inmate medical records at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. Recommendation 1 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff implement a computerized medical record system for maintaining inmate medical records at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. Finding 2 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff Staff, has not always followed procedures, policies, and protocols pertaining to the intake process of arrestees. Recommendation 2 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff follow the established procedures, policies, and protocols pertaining to the intake process of arrestees. Finding 3 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff does not have adequate oversight methods in place for ensuring Corizon Health staff are following their medical intake procedures at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail before the inmate is transferred to custody officers for classification. Recommendation 3 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff update Appendices A and B and add two signature blocks, one for medical clearance staff the other for the custody officer prior to classification at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail. . Finding 4 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff medical intake prescreening questionnaire is now being conducted by Corizon Health registered nurses; however, the Medical Process Overview Chart does not reflect this. Recommendation 4 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff continue to use Corizon Health registered nurses to conduct all medical intake screening of arrestees entering the Jail and include this provision in all future contracts and in the Medical Process Overview Chart. Finding 5 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Operations Policy and Procedures Manual regarding the intake process needs revision. Recommendation 5 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff update the Custody Operations Policy and Procedures Manual to reflect the new changes being implemented to the intake process. 112 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL Finding 6 The Santa Barbara County Sheriff staff has not always confirmed arrestees were medically cleared by Corizon Health staff prior to classification and placement into the Jail population. Recommendation 6 That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff initiate a procedure to ensure that all medical intake procedures are properly completed prior to classification and that inmate classification not be allowed to occur without verification of the completion of medical evaluation and clearance. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Santa Barbara County Sheriff 60 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 113 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL APPENDIX A Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Medical Pre Screening 114 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 115 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL 116 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL APPENDIX B Intake and Receiving Screening CS1101 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 117 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL 118 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 119 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL APPENDIX C MEDICAL PROCESS OVERVIEW 120 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL APPENDIX D CLINICAL OPIATE WITHDRAWAL SCALES (COWS) 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 121 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL APPENDIX E Receiving Screening Process 122 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Problems on the Board SUMMARY The 2015-2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) completed an investigation into the Lompoc Unified School District (LUSD) after receiving complaints concerning a perceived conflict of interest involving a member of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education (Board) and his spouse, an employee of LUSD. The complainants reported that they came to the Grand Jury because they feared retaliation if they spoke out publicly on the issue, having already been subjected to threats of termination and other workplace hostility. The Jury found that there was at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Consistent with its role as “the public’s watchdog” in civil matters, the Jury deferred to the Santa Barbara County District Attorney the question of whether any criminal laws were broken. The Jury also found that the Board lacks adequate internal financial controls regarding transfers from the General Fund and payments of travel expenses. Finally, the Jury found that the Board did not adequately oversee staff attendance, allowed unethical behavior, and permitted a hostile work environment to exist.
• CL31
  The 2015–2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury’s investigation of the Lompoc Unified School District (LUSD) and its Board of Education (Board) found that, by permitting both the appearance of a conflict of interest and an ongoing hostile work environment to exist, the Board has failed in its self- proclaimed mission “to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the district.” Additionally, the Board has not provided adequate oversight of its financial responsibilities. The 2015 - 2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found other issues which require action. The Lompoc Unified School District needs to enforce policies to process employee complaints without fear of retaliation. District attendance policies need to be enforced to provide accountability for staff absences during the workday. The Board should require ethics training for its members. Finally, internal controls need to be established to provide adequate monitoring and enforcement of Board policies and the budgetary process. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 A Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member twice voted on pay increases that benefited his spouse. Recommendation 1a That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education require that the spouse’s pay increases be reimbursed to the Lompoc Unified School District. Recommendation 1b That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education members recuse themselves from discussing and voting on issues that give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest. Finding 2 The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not have adequate control of how 5 http://www.localethics.fppc.ca.gov/login.aspx 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 129 LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT expenditures of the General Fund are being allocated and tracked. Recommendation 2 That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education obtain an independent, specific audit of the General Fund expenditures to clarify the use of public funds. Finding 3 A Lompoc Unified School District employee traveled to a conference with her spouse, a Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member, and she failed to reimburse expenses as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350. Recommendation 3a That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education enforce the Lompoc Unified School District travel policy as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350. Recommendation 3b That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education prepare appropriate forms or put in place a tracking system so that the business office has a method to collect pre-paid travel expenses from employees. Finding 4 The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education has allowed a hostile work environment to exist. Recommendation 4a That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education add a policy prohibiting all District employees, Board members, and officials from engaging in abusive conduct as defined in Government Code section 12950.1, subdivisions (b) and (g)(2) [“conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include … verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.”] Recommendation 4b That, after the Lompoc Unified School District adopts the policy described above, the District post, distribute, and provide training on that policy throughout the organization, and enforce it. Finding 5 The Lompoc Unified School District does not adequately account for the presence of its staff and management during work hours. Recommendation 5 That the Lompoc Unified School District enforce an attendance policy for staff and management to ensure they are present and accounted for during work hours. 130 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Finding 6 The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not include its members in the “Employment of Relatives” Policy BP 4112.8/4312.8 (See Appendix D). Recommendation 6 That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education revise its Policy, BP 4112.8/4312.8, to include members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education. Finding 7 Members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education are not required to receive ethics training. Recommendation 7 That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education adopt a policy to require ethics training for Board members on par with AB1234 “Local Ethics Training” requirements. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Santa Barbara County District Attorney – Information Copy – No Response Required Superintendent Santa Barbara County Education Office – 90 days Finding 2 Recommendation 2 Santa Barbara County Board of Education– 90 days Finding 2 Recommendation 2 Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 Recommendation 1a, 1b, 2, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5, 6, and 7 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 131 LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT APPENDIX A Government Code 1090 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 1090-1099 1090. (a) Members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members. Nor shall state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees be purchasers at any sale or vendors at any purchase made by them in their official capacity. (b) An individual shall not aid or abet a Member of the Legislature or a state, county, district, judicial district, or city officer or employee in violating subdivision (a). (c) As used in this article, "district" means any agency of the state formed pursuant to general law or special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. 1091.5. (a) An officer or employee shall not be deemed to be interested in a contract if his or her interest is any of the following: (6) That of a spouse of an officer or employee of a public agency in his or her spouse's employment or officeholding if his or her spouse's employment or officeholding has existed for at least one year prior to his or her election or appointment. 1097 (a) Every officer or person prohibited by the laws of this state from making or being interested in contracts, or from becoming a vendor or purchaser at sales, or from purchasing scrip or other evidences of indebtedness, including any member of the governing board of a school district, who willfully violates any of the provisions of those laws, is punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, and is forever disqualified from holding any office in this state. (b) An individual who willfully aids or abets an officer or person in violating a prohibition by the laws of this state from making or being interested in contracts, or from becoming a vendor or purchaser at sales, or from purchasing scrip, or other evidences of indebtedness, including any member of the governing board of a school district, is punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, and is forever disqualified from holding any office in this state. (AMENDED BY STATS. 2014, CH. 483, SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015.) 132 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT APPENDIX B Lompoc School District Travel Policy 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 133 LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 134 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 135 LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 136 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT APPENDIX C Travel Expenses 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 137 LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT APPENDIX D BP4112.8/4312.8 Employment of Relatives 138 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ACTIVITY REPORTS DECIDUOUS OAK TREE PROTECTION INTRODUCTION The 2015-2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury has completed an investigation regarding Article IX of Chapter 35, of the Santa Barbara County Code titled "Deciduous Oak Tree Protection and Regeneration Ordinance" (Ordinance). Enacted in 2003, the Ordinance was intended to protect oak trees for their major role in prevention of soil erosion and stabilization, as well as their historic and aesthetic contribution to the quality of life in Santa Barbara County.
• CL32
  The 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury determined that the Ordinance has been effective. The citizens and agriculture industry have self-policed and are protecting our county's unique environment-saving oaks. No oak tree removal projects have required mitigation since 2005 and no deciduous oak tree removal projects have been carried out since 2009. The 2003 County of Santa Barbara Deciduous Oak Tree Protection and Regeneration Ordinance has been a success.2 Under California Penal Code Section 933.05, this report does not require a response. 2 2015 Oak Tree Protection and Regeneration Program Status Report submitted, by Agricultural Commissioner and Director of Planning and Development, to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on October 6, 2015 140 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER ACTIVATION SUMMARY Following the oil spill at Refugio State Beach in May 2015, questions were raised concerning the use and perceived “take over” of the County of Santa Barbara’s (County) Emergency Operations Center (EOC) by a non-governmental entity, Plains All American Pipeline. This is an Activity Report by the 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury (Jury) pertaining to the use of the EOC. The Jury found that the activation of the EOC during the oil spill was in compliance with federal, state, and local laws.
• CL33
  The 2015 – 2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found that the activation of the Emergency Operations Center on May 21, 2015, was done in compliance with the Santa Barbara County Operational Area Oil Spill Contingency Plan and applicable county, state, and federal laws. Under California Penal Code Section 933.05, this report does not require a response. 144 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury WATER VALVE SAFETY Status of Air Vacuum Air Release Valves on the South Coast Conduit INTRODUCTION The 2015-2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) has completed an investigation of the United States Bureau of Reclamation's (USBR) water delivery system from Lake Cachuma through the Tecolote Tunnel into the South Coast Conduit (SCC) which delivers approximately 85 percent of the water to the South Coast. This 26 mile water delivery conduit has 26 air vacuum valves located between the intake valve at the Cater Water Treatment Plant and the Carpinteria Reservoir. The USBR owns the SCC which is contracted to be operated and maintained by the Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board (COMB), a California Joint Powers Agency formed in 1956 pursuant to an agreement with the USBR. COMB is responsible for the distribution of water to the communities of the South Coast of Santa Barbara County through the Tecolote Tunnel and operation and maintenance of the SCC pipeline. COMB also operates and maintains the flow control valves, meters, and instrumentation1.
• CL34
  The 2015-2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found that 20 of the recommended 26 air vacuum air release valves on the South Coast Conduit have been replaced as recommended and ahead of schedule. Six of these air vacuum air release valves have not been replaced, but are on the project work agenda to be completed by 2017-2018. Although the project is currently ahead of schedule, the challenging valve locations as well as the current drought conditions make it an inopportune time to replace these valves. All the water quality specialists, engineers, and officers interviewed unanimously agreed there is no current threat of contamination because the constant high water pressure within the conduit prevents infiltrates from entering the conduit. All the experts agreed there will be contamination only if a breach of the conduit occurs due to an earthquake or other catastrophic event. Under California Penal Code Section 933.05 this report does not require a response. 146 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury CITY OF SANTA BARBARA HARBOR OPERATIONS Are Boat Owners’ Property Taxes Slipping Away? SUMMARY The 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) received requests for investigation from citizens concerning certain operations of the Waterfront Department; specifically some questions concerning the harbor in the City of Santa Barbara. Complainants expressed concern with the fact that the department not only collects a slip transfer fee and monthly rent on slips; but property taxes are also collected from boat owners by the County of Santa Barbara, despite the fact that the slips are city property. Questions were also raised about the Department’s policies concerning vessel operability and people living on their vessels. Lastly, a concern was raised about vessel registration numbers (CF numbers). The Jury found that, on these particular issues, the harbor is operating within applicable state and local regulations, as well as within harbor policy.
• CL35
  The 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found that the collection of property taxes on boat slips at the City of Santa Barbara Harbor is being done in compliance with applicable state law. State law and internal policies are being followed concerning vessel registration. Lastly, it was found that city staff is following Santa Barbara Municipal Code TITLE 17, Harbor, and its internal policies concerning the operability of vessels and live-aboard permits. Under California Penal Code Section 933.05, this report does not require a response. 150 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury CITY OF SANTA BARBARA HARBOR OPERATIONS Appendix A 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 151 CITY OF SANTA BARBARA HARBOR OPERATIONS Appendix B 152 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury CITY OF SANTA BARBARA HARBOR OPERATIONS 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 153 CITY OF SANTA BARBARA HARBOR OPERATIONS This Page Intentionally Blank 154 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury

Observations 18

• OB1
  Twenty groups for which ethics and conflict of interest training is mandated by California State law (Assembly Bill 1234, enacted in 2005); and City Resolution 14-068.
• OB2
  Fourteen groups which are exempt from AB 1234 but are still required by the City to conform to ethics requirements by City Resolution 13-006.
• OB3
  Remaining groups who are exempt from the AB 1234 law but are required by the City’s Code of Conduct to follow all State conflict of interest laws. The Jury was told that appointment to the advisory boards and committees is inherently a political process and having committee members representing “special interests” is not uncommon, and not necessarily undesirable. The Jury was also told that a separate analysis might be required to determine if a conflict of interest exists in a given situation. The selection process can result in politically motivated appointments. A volunteer’s employment in a field closely related to their advisory role may well enhance their livelihood and be a gift to the public good. A "personal financial effects" rule requires a volunteer to abstain from discussion and voting in select situations. Although, the decision-making authority of the various committees, commissions, and boards is varied, the level of concern for conflicts of interest should not vary. Volunteer groups are often advisors to the City Council. The burden of objective and impartial decision-making is on the City Council, whose members answer to the public. The City Council members have had mandatory ethics training and make open-meeting public decisions that the voting public can scrutinize. The Council should consider whether the same conflict of interest and ethics training required of Council members should be added as a requirement to the remaining advisory groups, as well. The City of Santa Barbara's advisory groups are subject to the Brown Act. They conduct announced meetings with an agenda and are all open to the public. Meeting minutes are recorded by a City employee and posted on the City's web site. Each advisory group has a City employee as a liaison along with support staff, who are also City employees. The City bears the cost of each advisory group and their support staff. Is there a “sunset” provision in place? The Jury determined that no provision exists for eliminating advisory groups that may have outlived their usefulness. As a result, bureaucratic inertia may set in and the committees just continue in existence, accomplishing nothing other than expending the time of support staff and tax payer money. The Jury recommends City Council review the functioning of the committees and their mandates every five years. Are all of these committees necessary? Do their mandates overlap? The Jury’s answer to the first question is, probably not, but this decision is up to the City Council. The community may not need, for example, separate advisory committees for Airport Public Art oversight, Arts Advisory (except the airport), and oversight of the Arts and Crafts 104 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury CITY OF SANTA BARBARA show. The purpose of the website is to provide data to prospective volunteer committee members to help them decide whether to apply. On the other hand the Water Commission site is well done and contains much useful information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The City of Santa Barbara has at least 38 commissions, committees, and boards, some of which may have outlived their purpose. No review process exists concerning their relevance.
• OB4
  Online Citation Payments Parking citations can be paid online through a link on the SBSO website to the vendor’s online payment company. This company specializes in collecting law enforcement fees via the internet, similar to a payment processor such as PayPal™. The Jury learned from SBSO staff that they field phone calls on a daily basis from citation recipients unable to pay their fine online because no record of the citation can be found on the SBSO website link. The jury learned the vendor is not consistent in entering citation information into its database in a timely manner. In order to resolve this issue, the citizen must contact the SBSO staff who then need to manually check through their master citation list and follow up with the vendor to request a specific citation be entered. The vendor then enters this citation, usually within two to three days. In this age of internet availability, to revert to a manual verification is both time consuming and cumbersome. In some cases, when the citation cannot be found online by a citizen, it misleads the citizen into thinking that the citation has been voided and that they do not need to take further action, thereby risking late payment penalty fees and referral to collections. Citation Payments by Mail Parking citations can be paid with a check sent by mail directly to the vendor. The Jury, through interviews and documentation, found that payments can remain unprocessed at the vendor’s offices for days or weeks before the contractor processes the citation as paid. Even though checks have been mailed to the vendor within the statutory time, the Jury found they were not processed promptly and late fees were added. Attempts to resolve the issue of unprocessed checks involve an administrative review by a SBSO departmental supervisor, another manually intensive and cumbersome process. In the worst case scenario these paid but unprocessed citations can then be sent to a debt collection agency. Along with the risk of a citizen’s credit rating being affected which accompanies unpaid debt reporting to a collection agency, is the use of unnecessary SBSO staff hours and the risk to the reputation of the Sheriff’s office. Contract Renewal The SBSO has attempted to renew the contract but has been unsuccessful due to a lack of response to a request for insurance documentation from the vendor. This failure is compounded by a lack of follow through from the SBSO to obtain this documentation. Standard operating procedure within the SBSO is to transfer supervisorial officers from one division to another. This is an ideal process when grooming staff to move up the ladder and gain the necessary experience needed for promotion. However, this procedure can wreak havoc on small divisions of low priority. SBSO personnel, who looked into renewing the contract with the outside vendor, were not able to complete the assignment before being transferred to another department. 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 3 PARKING CITATION PAYMENT PROBLEMS No Option to Pay by Cash Cash is not accepted for payment of parking citations. Some citizens within Santa Barbara County use cash for all their business transactions. However, there is no way for these citizens to pay in person or with cash. This would allow the transaction to be documented with a receipt. Other Payment Processing Options The Jury learned there are other companies that provide parking citation payment services throughout the country that the SBSO could explore. Public Relations Issue With law enforcement under ever increasing scrutiny throughout the country, this low priority function when performed inadequately can tarnish the department’s reputation. Any contractor should be held accountable for its actions and the SBSO should ensure fulfillment of contract terms. The failure to correct problems in a timely manner creates a risk of adverse publicity for the SBSO. If someone’s credit rating is adversely affected by this flawed process, it is likely that it will be reflected as a black mark on the SBSO for failure to properly manage the process and could expose the county to potential liability.
• OB5
  Board of Directors The governing Body of the CCSD is a five person board elected by the citizens of New Cuyama. One director resigned in July 2015 and it took approximately six months to fill the vacancy. The Jury was informed that directors can attend board meetings by phone if they are out of town. However, the existing telephone system is dated and teleconferencing is not easily accomplished. Directors receive no compensation even though CA government code §53232.1 says they may. Of the sixteen water, sewer, and community service districts in Santa Barbara County surveyed by the Jury, from data on the California State Controller’s website3, the CCSD is one of only four that does not compensate its board of directors for their service. All board directors, both past and present, interviewed by the Jury seemed to take their jobs seriously and to care greatly about the proper functioning of the water and sewer systems entrusted to them. During its investigation, however, the Jury found that the board was not fulfilling its responsibilities such as setting policy, enforcing that policy, and giving appropriate direction and supervision to the full time staff. In particular these include:  Job Descriptions  Personnel Policy Manual 3 www.publicpay.ca.gov 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 9 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT  Policy Enforcement  Performance Reviews  Personal Use of District Vehicle  Staffing Issues  Work Environment  Financial Management Job Descriptions Four positions have no job description at all. The four are the Assistant Operator, the Maintenance Worker, the Assistant Maintenance Worker, and the Relief Secretary. The lack of a job description for the Assistant Operator position, sometimes called Manager’s Helper, is particularly problematic, as it is filled by the Manager’s son. The Jury determined that over the years there have been questions as to the responsibilities and work schedule for this position4. As early as 2011, a board member resigned over questions involving the proper documentation of timesheets for this position. In February of 2015, the issue was resolved by changing the Assistant Operator position from hourly to salaried, with a 35 hour per week work requirement. However, because no written job description exists for the Assistant Operator position, the Jury could not confirm or deny whether the qualifications, certifications and responsibilities for this position were being met. In order to completely understand their responsibilities, roles and work schedule, all employees need and deserve to have a written job description. The job descriptions for the two full time staff have not been updated in many years. The job description for the Manager is 24 years old and does not specify important responsibilities such as response time for repairs, professional licenses required by the State, ongoing training and/or continuing education requirements (See Appendix A). When the Secretary/Bookkeeper position was upgraded in 2009, the job title was changed to Controller. The job description (see Appendix A) was modified to clarify that this position includes financial responsibilities and special projects. It also specified that this position reports directly to the BOD. In practice, the Controller continues to report to the Manager, which has been problematical. Personnel Policy Manual Although parts of the Personnel Policy Manual (PPM) have been updated, the Jury found that the BOD has not updated the entire PPM in several years. It does not reflect changes in the law that have occurred since it was first issued. Some topics, such as requiring ethics training for employees, are not included at all. Because the CCSD BOD members do not accept compensation or expense reimbursement, they are not required, according to Government Codes §53232, and §53234 et seq to attend ethics training courses. The training course covers subjects such as conflict of interest and nepotism, both of which are alleged to have occurred in the CCSD. The BOD has the authority to require such training for key CCSD personnel. CCSD records and 4 Board of Directors meeting minutes, June 15, 2011. 10 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ personnel interviews indicate that neither the Manager nor the Controller have ever received such training. The Jury recommends that the ethics training be incorporated in the job descriptions for these personnel. An ethics training course that satisfies the legal requirements is available online, at no cost from the California Fair Political Practices Commission5. Policy Enforcement The job of elected directors is to set policy for their agency, and give direction to the staff to carry out the district’s policy. The staff’s job is then to implement the board’s policies and priorities. When a breakdown occurs in this operating process, it is the directors’ responsibility to address the problem. The CCSD PPM, in Section XIV, Disciplinary Actions Against Employees 1, (see Appendix B) sets forth District policy regarding employee discipline. The BOD has not enforced this policy. In particular, according to CCSD meeting minutes in 2013 and again in 2014, an employee was instructed to enforce District policy (Enforcement Policy, Article 10 Section 1-1003, (see Appendix E) with regard to denial of water service to delinquent accounts. The Jury was informed that the employee refused to accept the BOD’s direction in this matter. Instead, the employee ignored the CCSD policy and BOD directions and attempted to address the problem by working out payment plans with the delinquent account holders. The employee in this case did not have the authority to work out individual payment plans with District water customers. The CCSD averages approximately $11,000 in overdue monthly accounts receivable. The BOD did not enforce their PPM policy regarding insubordination. The BOD needs to enforce its written policies and disciplinary procedures. Performance Reviews The Jury determined that full time staff members have never received performance reviews either from the Manager or the Board of Directors, as required by the CCSD’s PPM, Section XXIII (see Appendix B). In addition, the Jury noted that the PPM does not require annual performance reviews for at least two salaried positions. The PPM needs to be updated and all annual performance reviews must be given as required. Personal Use of District Vehicle Employees have approval to use the District vehicle whenever on District business. This includes local trips and travel to Bakersfield and/or Taft, as long as District business is being conducted. However, the Jury has been told that instances have occurred when the District vehicle has been used solely for personal business in violation of CCSD Policy 91-1 (see Appendix E). This Policy allows occasional and incidental use of the District vehicle for personal business while on District business, but does not allow personal use of a CCSD vehicle, solely for personal business. This is also a violation of the PPM, Section XIV Disciplinary Actions Against Employees, 6. Dishonesty or misuse of public property (see Appendix B). The BOD failed to enforce its own policy. All employees should understand and follow the specifics of the CCSD Policy 91-1 Regarding the Use of District Vehicles. 5 http://www.localethics.fppc.ca.gov/login.aspx 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 11 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Staffing Issues The current Controller has worked at CCSD for 20 years and was promoted into this position from secretary/bookkeeper in 2009. The Controller has many diverse responsibilities. These include providing financial functions and preparing meeting minutes and preparing grant applications. The Controller reports to the BOD on paper only. In reality the Controller reports to the Manager. Difficulties may be caused by the conflict in the structure of the district, whereby the job description instructs the Controller to report to the BOD, but the Controller has been told to report to the Manager. Reporting to two different supervisors can lead to uncertainty in job priorities for the employee. Because of the heavy workload for this position, some important functions have not been kept up to date. For example, minutes from board meetings are not completed and have not been approved by the board in a timely manner. In many instances, they have been several months late. The meeting minutes are far too detailed; which increases workload for the staff and delays their approval. As a result, rather than being a tool the BOD can use as a status reminder during their monthly meetings, minutes approval delays have become a point of continuing controversy. On occasion, the Relief Secretary works in the office so that the Controller can bring the minutes up to date. The Jury recommends that this practice be employed more often. The Manager’s son works as the Assistant Operator although there is no job description for this position. In this capacity he reports to his father. In 2011, a board member resigned over questions involving the proper documentation of time sheets for this position. Hired initially as an hourly worker in 1999, the Assistant Operator was switched to salaried status in 2015 (still without a job description) to address this It is unusual within a government agency to have a relative work for and report directly to another relative. Despite an employee’s best intentions to serve the community, supervising a relative and the desire to help family members can lead to perceived or actual unethical decisions that may put the agency at financial risk and cause poor employee morale. Concerns of special treatment or perceived special treatment due to nepotism typically preclude such a work arrangement. Most government agencies have policies concerning the issue of relatives working together or supervising each other. The CCSD PPM does not address this issue. The Jury recommends that the CCSD BOD add a policy addressing conflict of interest / nepotism to its PPM. Work Environment A serious board failure discovered by the Jury was that the BOD tolerated a work environment contrary to its own policy to exist. In Section XIV. Disciplinary Actions Against Employees, the CCSD’s PPM states: “A permanent employee may be suspended, demoted, or dismissed for one or more of the following causes: … … 2. Offensive, abusive, or persistent discourteous treatment of the public or fellow 12 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ employees.” (See Appendix B) In the opinion of numerous people interviewed by the Jury, raised voices and abusive and hostile language have been used repeatedly at public board meetings and during the work day. Examples of information on this matter from meeting minutes, tape recordings of board meetings, interviews, and BOD resignation letters (see Appendix C) have indicated that the work environment is disruptive and colleagues are disrespectful to each other. When the discussion gets heated, there is an atmosphere of intimidation, voices are raised, and 9-1-1 has been called. The CCSD PPM, Section XIV, 2., has been violated. Unfortunately, the result of this offensive behavior is that board members have resigned. Appendix D provides more opinions of this behavior. The CCSD BOD has not done an adequate job in managing employee relations. The working environment and board meetings can best be described as tense. Board members have observed and were made aware of the working conditions, yet did not take disciplinary action. It is unacceptable that the BOD failed to act on this matter for many years. Most recently at the Board meeting on November 19, 2015, a formal complaint was filed by the Controller concerning the working environment (see Appendix C). At the time this report was written, the Jury was unaware of any resolution. A widely-held belief expressed by Board members was that a strained atmosphere existed between the BOD and an employee. This strained atmosphere has led to the resignation of more than one director (see Appendix C) and may be a contributing factor to CCSD’s difficulty in attracting candidates to fill out the board. This could have a detrimental effect on the smooth operations of a vital community service. Financial Management The CCSD has been successful in applying for and receiving capital improvement grants from State and Federal agencies. This success is due, in large part, to Cuyama’s designation as a severely disadvantaged community6. The median household income in 2009 was $32,999/year. The combined sewage collection and water fees are about $140/month, placing them near the midpoint of fees charged by similar entities countywide. “Similar entities” in this context, are smaller service districts that struggle to provide water or sewer service to a limited customer base. Changes in legislated requirements, certification requirements, and workforce attrition will inevitably affect district finances. The results of an October 2015 independent Water and Wastewater Study7 done by the Rural Community Assistance Corporation and funded by the State Water Resources Control Board and Health and Human Services, determined that the CCSD will need to increase both its water and wastewater rates in order to remain fiscally solvent over the next 5 years. Rate increases are needed to ensure that the CCSD has the ability to obtain sufficient funds to develop, construct, operate, maintain, and manage its water and wastewater systems on a continuing basis, in full compliance with federal, state and local requirements. At a minimum, the rate study recommended a 2% annual inflation rate increase for each utility. An additional 29% increase in 6 RCAC Median Household Income Survey, March 2009 7 CCSD Water and Wastewater Rate Study, October 2015 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 13 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT the base water rate was also recommended. A customer education and information plan needs to be implemented to prepare the customers for the higher bills. The following items are some of the bullet points made in the rate study: “  The ability of the current rate structure to generate adequate revenue will depend on maintaining a vigorous collection and shut-off policy to keep delinquent accounts at a minimum.” “  In order to achieve and maintain long term viability, water and wastewater systems should review rates annually or no less than a minimum of every two years. Keeping track of customer seasonal and annual water demands will help determine operational needs, budget forecasts and rate adjustments.” “  CCSD should begin the process of adjusting rates to the recommended amounts immediately.” The Jury concurs with the study’s recommendations. CCSD Succession Planning The current Manager has worked at CCSD for almost 25 years under a job description written and agreed to in May 1991. He has current Distribution Level 1 and Treatment Level 2 Water Certificates and a Grade 2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator’s Certificate from the State of California that allow him to manage both the water and sewer operations. The Manager is responsible for all operational aspects of both the water and wastewater treatment facilities. In other words, he is responsible for keeping the water running and making sure all testing and reporting requirements are met. Except for one occasion in Feb/Mar 2011 when the water to the town was shut down due to a valve problem, all of the people interviewed by the jury indicated that the most important function of the CCSD, keeping the water flowing, has been accomplished successfully. The long-time CCSD Manager has submitted a letter stating his intent to retire February 1, 2016.8 The elected CCSD BOD will need to address the succession issue. Finding a qualified successor, with the appropriate certifications, at a salary level the CCSD can afford, will create a new set of financial issues. Because the outgoing Manager retired from an oil company with a pension and benefits, he has been willing to work for less than the market rate for a person of his qualifications and experience. The community will need to understand the need for service fees increasing to support a compensation package that will attract competent, qualified, and loyal employees. Helpful, professional guides9 are available to aid the BOD in its succession planning. State and County government personnel, grant providers, and private water and sewer experts are known to the BOD and should be consulted. The present Manager has proposed that the Assistant Operator succeed him10. This is not considered a solution because the Assistant Operator does not have the requisite licenses. Public employment decisions should be based solely on merit. Qualifications such as education, 8 At the Board of Directors Meeting on February 1, 2016, attended by Jury members, it was decided that the Manager will remain on staff from February 1 to February 29, 2016 to assist in the transition to his successor. 9 http://www.bcwaternews.com 10 Board of Directors meeting minutes, June 15, 2011. 14 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___ skills and experience a candidate can bring to the position should be the main criteria for employment. The search for the new manager should be all about finding the best qualified individual to serve the CCSD. The Grand Jury is pleased to note that the CCSD BOD held special meetings beginning in November 2015 and appears to recognize the seriousness of the succession issue. In addition, the Jury notes that the BOD has interviewed several people and may be close to filling the position of Manager for Water/Sewer Operations. In the future, the succession plan should include the position of Controller. Finally, the succession plan should be supported by the current management team to ensure a smooth transition of the District for the good of the community.
• OB6
  In order to fully understand the potential negative impact of the Code’s ambiguities and the inconsistent practices of the County P&D, it is necessary to understand the entire process of obtaining a construction and/or grading permit. It is also necessary to understand the intent of the Board of Supervisors (BOS) when enacting the Code. The Jury reviewed the following items:  Mandated Permitting Process Considerations  Ambiguities Related to “Slope”  Work Which Exceeds the Permitted Scope  Observed Grading Where No Permit Exists Mandated Permitting Process Considerations A. Individual Community Plans Community Plans are developed by committees within local jurisdictions in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County. These plans are approved by the BOS. There are eight community plans representing various jurisdictions, all are somewhat different. All new construction taking place within a Community Plan’s jurisdiction must adhere to the specific policies. When an applicant first applies for a Land Use Permit (LUP), the application will be assigned to a land planner who will review the application and ensure that all applicable ordinances are satisfied. The land planner must be familiar with the policies of all community plans affecting their area. These include differing Hillside and Watershed Protection Policies in each of the eight Community Area Plans and One Specific Plan (Mission Canyon). Some examples are contained in Table 1. 38 2015-16 County Santa Barbara Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY – GRADING CODE Table 1. Hillside and Watershed Protection Policies in Selected Community Plans Goleta Valley “Ground disturbances and development on slopes of 20% or greater Community Plan should be avoided” Eastern Goleta Valley “Ground disturbances and development on slopes of 20% or greater Community Plan should be avoided” “No development shall be allowed on slopes of 30% or greater” Montecito “Development on Portions of the site that exceed 30% slopes which Community Plan are located outside constrain areas should be limited to single family lots of five or more acres in size” Santa Ynez “Hillside grading over 30% on residential and commercial land Community Plan should be severely restricted” B. Santa Barbara County Fire Department ‘Driveway’ Standards In addition to the requirements set forth in A. above, the applicant must also comply with the Santa Barbara County Fire Department Driveway Standards for new construction which states:  “Gradients up to 20% may be allowed with extenuating circumstances. Any gradient approved above 15% in slope must consist of a concrete structural section designed by a civil engineer. At no time shall any Fire Department access exceed 20%”. C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The applicant must also comply with CEQA. There are many exceptions and exemptions, but each application is reviewed for overall impact. Among other things, some applications may require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or a Negative Declaration with Mitigation by the property owner. The process is summarized on this link: http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/about_landuse.php D. Notice and Appeals Per the Land Use Development Code (LUDC), all permit applications require that notice be given to all neighboring parcels and property owners. They have a right to:  review proposed development plans, and if they object then;  appeal to the Planning Commission (PC) followed by;  appeal to the Board of Supervisors Once the P&D application process is completed, the applicant must then apply for a building permit from the Santa Barbara County Department of Building and Safety (B&S). At the B&S, the grading portion of the plan is then forwarded to either the North or South County Grading Inspector. Guided by the Code, which states “The Board of Supervisors expressly finds that the regulations, conditions and provisions of this chapter constitute minimum standards and procedures necessary to protect and preserve life, limb, health, property and public welfare….” the grading inspector reviews the building permit application. After the inspector verifies that the project meets all Code criteria, the B&S issues a grading permit. The fees for this permit are proportional to the volume of earth moved. The permit is usually valid for one year but extensions may be granted. 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 39 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY – GRADING CODE Ambiguities Related to ‘Slope’ The Code is confusing when defining the term “% slope”. This terminology is used in several ordinances and regulations. The % slope is the change in altitude per foot of horizontal distance. As an example, a change in altitude of 30 feet over 100 feet of horizontal distance would be a 30% slope or 16.7 degrees. The relationship between % slope and slope angle is summarized on Table 2. Table 2. Relationship Between % Slope and Slope Angle Vertical Change in Feet % Slope Slope Angle in degrees per 100 Feet of Horizontal Distance 100 ft. 100 % 45.0° 70 ft. 70 % 35.0° 60 ft. 60 % 31.0° 50 ft. 50 % 26.5° 40 ft. 40 % 21.8° 30 ft. 30 % 16.7° 20 ft. 20 % 11.3° 10 ft. 10 % 5.7° Work Which Exceeds the Permitted Scope If the volume or scope of a permit is exceeded, the Code allows, at the discretion of the inspector, a stop work notice which can lead to violations and fines. Alternatively, the inspector may allow the landowner to submit a document which describes only work done in excess of the original permit. This document is commonly known as an “as built”. If it was a grading issue, the inspector might require a current survey depicting several points of elevation, which allows for wide variations in discretion. At that point the permit would be finalized or, at the discretion of the inspector, the landowner may be required to submit a revision to the grading plan of the original permit. Any revision requires re-approval by P&D but no notice is given to adjacent landowners. If a revision is deemed appropriate by the inspector, a new set of plans is required showing the particulars of the revision in accordance with the LUDC Post Approval Procedures 35.84.040. (See Appendix B). The variations within the LUDC have substantially different effects. For the landowner, the cost in lost time and financial impact varies. For the community and surrounding landowners, they lose the opportunity to review, dispute, or appeal the final result. The LUDC revision protocol requires the P&D Director to determine whether a change is minor and it conforms substantially to the approved plans and the original permit. In reality, a subordinate planner in P&D, makes the decision relying partially on the grading inspector’s input. Once the decision is made to allow minor changes, they become final and not subject to appeal. These changes do not require additional notice to neighbors and generally do not require additional fees. According to interviewees, numerous revisions can be, or have been, issued for the same original permit. This effectively prolongs the permit life and is in direct violation of Code Chapter 35 that 40 2015-16 County Santa Barbara Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY – GRADING CODE states, “2. Where a minor change of an approved or issued Coastal Development Permit or Land Use Permit, or issued Zoning Clearance is approved, the permit or clearance shall have the same effective and expiration dates as the original permit or clearance and no additional public notice shall be required.” Numerous revisions can significantly and incrementally expand the scope of the project, one minor revision at a time. A review of these cumulative changes would possibly trigger a much higher level of scrutiny or even denial of the original permit. Additionally, an “as-built” or revision, put into effect after the fact, can bypass the proper required inspection for minimum safety standards for work performed on 20% and greater slopes. Multiple revisions, issued either before or after the work was completed, can effectively extend the life of the original permit for years. These same multiple revisions, each one minor, can add up to a major modification of the impact on the local area 50 cubic yards at a time. Those multiple revisions can also directly impact the CEQA, coastal zones, environmentally sensitive habitats and total review of the project. It also bypasses the neighbors’ right to review the changes that could cumulatively impact them. The ambiguities in the Code and the subjective enforcement practices allow a range of outcomes. As an example, one landowner could move 49 cubic yards of earth every few weeks and be exempt from any permit requirements, while a neighbor could be required to submit a revision request, or receive a violation for the same activity. A landowner who exceeds the scope of the permit could be allowed an “as-built”, or be required to submit a revision without being fully reviewed by P&D or neighbors. These procedures could bypass the careful consideration that County staff use in analyzing local ordinances and regulations during the LUP process. For example, one Community Plan within the county prohibits any grading on slopes greater than 30%, while the Grading Code Sec. 14-25 – Excavations, states: “(a) No excavation shall be made with a cut face steeper in slope than one and one-half units horizontal to one unit vertical….” This allows the creation of slopes of 33.7° or 67%. Differences between the Community Plans and the County Code can be problematic. The inconsistencies make it very difficult to understand which Code takes precedence. Historically, appeals have usually been resolved in favor of the local Community Plan. The Jury found that grading inspectors from county P&D who are responsible for North and South County inspections vary in their interpretation as it applied to processing LUDC applications that included grading 50 cubic yards of earth. Observed Grading Where No Permit Exists Currently, no policy requires inspectors to investigate improper activities involving grading observed by an inspector when no complaint has been filed. The only method of initiating an investigation is by a complaint initiated by a member of the community. 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 41 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY – GRADING CODE
• OB7
  Status of Lake Cachuma today The water in Lake Cachuma today is over allocated. The Lake, once billed as the long term solution to the water problem on the South Coast and designed to withstand a six to seven-year drought, was virtually empty in 2015, only four years after the lake had spilled. As of March 2016, the Lake was at 14.9 percent capacity. Siltation in the Lake has resulted in continued loss of storage capacity. Demands on the water supply exist today that did not exist in 1995 when new water allotments were calculated. Just as importantly, the current drought is worse than the drought of 1947-52 called the “design drought”, which was used to determine the original water allotments. All of these factors have resulted in a decrease in the volume of water that is, in reality, available to South Coast water users. Yet, the amount of water withdrawn each year has not been adjusted to account for this decrease. With negotiations to discuss renewal of the 1995 Contract set to begin in 2017, now is the time for member units to realistically address long term Lake water supply reliability. Siltation Siltation occurs when particles are washed into the reservoir and settle on the bottom. Recent fires such as the Zaca Fire contributed greatly to siltation in all Santa Ynez river reservoirs. Cachuma, Jameson, and Gibraltar reservoirs have all lost storage capacity due to siltation. Past attempts to remove silt were suspended due to environmental concerns. Furthermore, the Jury was told that cost calculations show future attempts would be prohibitively expensive. The 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 57 LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE Lake’s original design capacity was 205,000 AF, allowing 32,000 AF of water to be withdrawn every year (see Table 1). By 1995, siltation reduced the Lake’s capacity to 190,000 AF and the sustained annual yield was reduced to 25,714 AFY. The most recent sediment survey8, done in 2013, determined that this trend in lost capacity is continuing and the Lake capacity was measured at 184,121 AF, an overall loss of over 11% of the original design capacity. New contract negotiations for annual water allotments need to take into account this loss of storage capacity and the additional losses that are predicted to occur due to continuing siltation. Downstream Water Rights From its inception, all parties and signatories to the Cachuma Project agreed “not to take, restrict, impair, or interfere with any or all of said presently established rights to water”9 from the Santa Ynez River. All participants agreed that the “Cachuma Project shall continue to be operated to provide for the protection of prior downstream rights holders and public trust resources in accordance with Project Water Rights.”10 Project Water Rights are defined as permits and licenses issued for the Project pursuant to State law together with all orders of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Cachuma Project water rights were issued by the SWRCB in 1973, 1988, 1989, and 1994. The Jury learned that downstream users receive many recreational benefits from the mandated water releases from the Lake. However, more importantly, the City of Lompoc and its residents, located at the end of the Santa Ynez River, are solely dependent on groundwater for their potable water supply. The Santa Ynez River is the primary source of their groundwater recharge. By a vote of the people in 1991, Lompoc elected not to participate in the State Water Project, and therefore, receives no state water. New contract negotiations for annual water allotments to member units need to continue to account for the priority of water rights of Lompoc residents and other downstream users. Endangered Species Act In addition to water releases from the Lake for downstream water users, the Endangered Species Act and the 2000 Biological Opinion from NMFS require water be released from the Lake to protect the environment of the steelhead (rainbow) trout. Regardless of opinions about this endangered species’ status, this release is a requirement of Federal Law. The NMFS 2000 Biological Opinion was enacted after the safe yields in the 1995 Contract were already determined. In 2015, 2,696 AF were released downstream to meet the Federal requirement. Table 3 shows the magnitude of the effect of this additional demand on the Lake’s supplies. It is equivalent to the water allotted per year to each of the communities of Carpinteria, Santa Ynez and Montecito. Table 3 Annual Entitlementa / Demands, AFY, on Lake Cachuma, 2015 Entitlements AFY Goleta Water District 9,312 City of Santa Barbara 8,277 8 Results of 2013 Survey and Sedimentation Update on Lake Cachuma, February 17, 2014 9 United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Contract for the Furnishing of Water to Member Units of Santa Barbara County Water Agency, September 12, 1949 10 Ibid 58 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE Carpinteria Valley Water District 2,813 Santa Ynez RWCD ID #1 2,652 Montecito Water District 2,651 Required Reserve Dead Pool 12,000 AF Actual Demands for 2015 Downstream Water Rights 10,186 AFY Fish Habitat Water Release, 2015 2,696 AFY Evaporationb 7,105 AFY a Entitlements are not the actual allotments of water for each member unit. Other demands in the table are actual volumes for, 2015. b When the Lake is full the water lost to evaporation is estimated at 16,000 AFY. As the water level in the lake and the surface area go down so does the volume of water lost to evaporation. Furthermore, in March 2012 the SWRCB held a public hearing and anticipated issuing a new water rights order by the end of 2012. This new order has not yet been issued; however, all expectations are that it will require an increase in downstream releases. New contract negotiations for annual water allotments to member units need to take into account the water no longer available to them due to required water releases under the 2000 and future NMFS biological opinions. The “New Normal” Drought The current drought (2011 to 2015 with 51 inches of rain) is worse than the design drought of 1947 to 1952 with 59 inches of rain. The long anticipated El Niño storms are not materializing this year, which means that the South Coast is entering a fifth year of drought. Some experts are predicting this may be the “new normal”. New contract negotiations for annual water allotments to member units must consider the “new” worst case scenario and take into account the possibility of more severe droughts, lasting for longer time periods. Contract Period The first contract between the Santa Barbara County Water Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation was in effect for 46 years. The contract was renewed in 1995 with an effective term of 25 years. New contract negotiations need to consider an effective term less than 25 years to address water demand changes that will allow for a timelier and nimbler management of this valuable resource. The Jury determined through its investigation that a periodic mandatory review and revision clause on the order of every five or six years must be included. Such clauses would require signatories to recalculate new safe yields periodically. Operating Mode Modifications The “contracting officer”, defined as the Secretary of the US Department of the Interior or a duly authorized representative, has the ultimate say in determining the maximum supply of water available each water year to the Cachuma Project member units, which may not be their full entitlement. Member units submit a request for delivery of a quantity of water along with a 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 59 LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE monthly delivery schedule prior to the beginning of each water year. The contracting officer then either approves the amount to be delivered and the delivery schedule or modifies the quantity if the request exceeds the quantity authorized by law. Section 9(a) of the master Contract states that “the contracting officer shall use the best efforts to operate the Project efficiently and in a manner that will allow there to be the maximum amount of Available Supply each Water Year.”11 Table 4 summarizes the annual amount of water distributed to each member unit from the Lake over the past six years. It also shows the water remaining in storage as of September of each year. The Lake currently operates whereby each member unit begins the new water year with a clean slate and is entitled to their full annual allotment of water from the Lake along with any “carryover water” which is water not used during the previous water year. The carryover water explains why the water distributed in some years, shown as shaded areas in Table 4, is greater than the agency’s annual allotment. By 2013, two years after the Lake spilled, the water in the lake was reduced by about 50% to 91,922 AF. In hindsight, alarm bells should have been ringing at this point. Reductions in water distributions did not occur until 2014 when Lake Cachuma was at only 33% and member units took approximately 20% less than their entitled amount. For the first time in the history of the Cachuma Project, no new annual water allotments are scheduled for 2016. Table 4. Water Actually Distributed, AFY, from Lake Cachuma per COMB12 Water Montecito Santa Carpinteria City of Goleta Total from AF Water in % Entitlement Year Water Ynez ID Valley Water Santa Water Lake Storage, Approved or % of District No. 1 District Barbara District Cachumaa Sept Allotment Taken 2010 3,124 73 3,033 7,457 11,980 25,667 152,855 ------ 2011b 2,752 80 2,655 9,422 11,351 26,260 180,986 ------ 2012 3,610 80 3,447 9,613 11,991 28,741 142,970 ------ 2013 3,905 75 3,888 11,232 10,737 29,837 91,922 ------ 2014 1,171 34 2,610 8,720 6,634 19,169 61,107 80% 2015 473 25 889 3,472 4,529 9,388 32,989 45% 2016c 797 6 300 1,712 1,446 4,261 28,714 0% a Total Allotment by contract = 25,714 AFY b Cachuma spilled March 2011 c As of April 2016, all water is from the carryover account, 0% entitlement for 2016 Drawing down the Lake in the manner and as rapidly as was done over the last five years has resulted in an added expense of $8.6 M over three years (fiscal years 13/14, 14/15, and 15/16) for the four members units south of the Lake. This additional cost is for the Emergency Pumping Facility Project. This project was needed because the water level in the Lake was below the lowest gate of the water intake tower. The $8.6 M included the design, construction, project management, and operation of the barge and pipes needed to pump water from the remaining pools of water in the Lake over to the intake tower. 11 United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995. 12 Data was taken from COMB monthly reports, see COMB website, board minutes and agenda packets for each year, http://www.cachuma-board.org/meetingdocs/2015-meeting-archives.htm 60 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE The Jury learned that because of their geographical location, there are some areas of Goleta, Santa Barbara, and Montecito that are completely reliant on surface water for their water needs. If no water deliveries are made from surface water sources or groundwater wells, these areas would have to be served with alternative emergency water plans. The Jury was told that emergency plans are in place to serve customers in the case of a complete loss of surface water supplies. On a temporary basis water service would only be possible under extreme rationing and would only be available for health and safety use and no outdoor watering. There is no contractual wording requiring a decrease in entitlements as the amount of water in the Lake decreases. The Jury was told repeatedly that this operational mode has contributed to the current angst and speed at which the water has been withdrawn from the Lake and that changes need to be made. The Jury was informed of two water release alternatives that can be implemented to address what many see as a flaw in the efficient management of this valuable resource. One scenario calls for water withdrawals on a sliding scale, based on the time since the last Lake spill. Drawing the reservoir down as much as possible in “Year One” after a spill would provide more capacity to exist in the Lake so that the maximum amount of water could be captured the following year, assuming it is a rainy year. “Year Two” after a spill would begin mandatory reductions in withdrawals, assuming that year is the beginning of the next drought. Another alternative calls for mandatory reductions to member unit entitlements that would be triggered as the Lake capacity decreases. The new contract for annual water allotments to member units must include changes to elements of the current operational mode, post spill year, which would maximize the amount of “Available Supply each Water Year”13 and minimize extra costs incurred by the community such as those needed to install the emergency pumping facility or to purchase additional expensive supplemental State Water. Water Management Planning The Jury learned that each member unit makes decisions based on their own needs and water management plans. Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs)14 are required to be prepared every five years by urban water suppliers that provide over 3,000 AFY of water or serve over 3,000 customers. The UWMP supports long term resource planning, encourages the efficient use of available supplies, and ensures that adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. In years of long term drought, having a plan to manage your water supply is even more important. Without such a plan, elected public officials lack the guidance to make responsible decisions based on a careful analysis of their agency’s water portfolio and could succumb to pressure from constituents to make decisions for political reasons. Santa Ynez Water Conservation District ID No. 1 is the only member unit exempt from the UWMP requirement. Of the remaining four member units, only Montecito Water District does not have an updated UWMP. Montecito Water District (MWD) must update its UWMP with a 13 United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995. 14 California Department of Water Resources website, http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/ 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 61 LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE focus on developing supply and demand strategies they can rely on during prolonged drought periods. Conservation Efforts With dwindling surface water supplies, member units had two choices: (1) buy supplemental water on the open market or, (2) initiate conservation efforts to extend the limited amount of available water. In this instance, Santa Barbara County water agencies were initially united in their individual efforts to promote conservation among their water users. Table 5 is a timeline summarizing conservation efforts and subsequent reversals of such efforts. By March 2014, when Lake Cachuma was below 50% capacity, and it was apparent the area was in the third year of below average rainfall, four of the five member units, Santa Barbara, Carpinteria, Montecito, and Goleta had declared a drought emergency. By June 2014, Santa Ynez declared a Stage 1 drought and by September 2014 Santa Barbara and Goleta were at Stage 2 drought. Table 5. Timeline of Conservation Efforts and Lack Thereof Date Conservation Action Member Unit Feb 2014 Stage 1 Santa Barbara and Carpinteria Ordinance 92 & 93 MWD Mar 2014 Stage 1 Goleta Water District May 2014 Stage 2 City of Santa Barbara June 2014 Stage 1 Santa Ynez Water Conservation District ID No. 1 Sept 2014 Stage 2 Goleta Water District Mar 2015 Ordinance 94 MWD – Increases water allotments April 2015 Executive Order B- Governor of CA issues Executive order for mandatory 29-15 reductions for urban water suppliers May 2015 Stage 2 Carpinteria Valley Water District Stage 3 City of Santa Barbara and Goleta Water District Sept 2015 Stage 2 Santa Ynez Water Conservation District ID No. 1 Each stage of declared drought can mean something different at each water agency. Most drought stages set limits on outside water use. Unique among agencies enacting water use restrictions is the Montecito Water District. Rather than limiting water uses and adding a drought surcharge to water bills, which would compensate for some of the reduced revenue from decreased water use, MWD (in Ordinance 93) gave an allotment of water to each customer based on property size, enacted penalties for overuse, and added a moratorium on water service connections. Of concern to the Jury is the action taken by MWD, and the confusing message it sent to its customers with the passage of Ordinance 94, in March 2015. Ordinance 94 was enacted in response to a successful search to buy supplemental state water on the open market. In this ordinance, the MWD Board of Directors approved an increase in water allotments to their customers. This occurred just one month before the Governor of California enacted an unprecedented executive order for statewide mandatory water use reductions. Member units need to work together to send a clear message to their constituents, to reduce confusion and to emphasize the severity of the water shortages all residents are facing. Of benefit to the regional water community would be a consistent set of defined conservation 62 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE measures that would be written into the subcontracts between the Agency and all member units, and that member units would enact within their jurisdictional areas in response to specific drought triggers. Regional Cooperation The Jury learned that during the previous drought period of 1986-1990, member units voluntarily agreed to a 20% decrease in their allotments when the Lake’s capacity reached 100,000 AF. A similar voluntary reduction was not agreed to by all members during the current drought. The Jury learned how such a decision is understandable. From the viewpoint of a water agency that has a diversified water portfolio, such as the Goleta Water District, it can opt to make decisions, based on financial reasons, to use up all of its allotment of inexpensive Lake water before dipping into its more expensive groundwater or State Project Water supplies, see Table 2. However, not all member units participating in the Cachuma Project are fortunate enough or have had the foresight to develop a diversified water portfolio. The member units that rely on surface water for up to 90% of their water supplies are more focused on keeping as much water in the Lake for as long as possible. The City of Santa Barbara has started to rebuild its desalination plant as one way to diversify its water supply. Montecito Water District relies almost exclusively (95%) on surface water with groundwater making up the remaining 5%. The Jury learned that Santa Barbara and Montecito are involved in discussions to participate as partners in the rebuilding of the City’s desalination plant. The Jury recommends that in light of regional cooperation, and obtaining a new reliable source of water for the South Coast, that these discussions continue. Cooperation among member units took a turn for the worse in 2011 when CCRB was transferred to COMB, which then began implementing the Fish Management Plan. When this happened, Santa Ynez ID No.1 lost some of their power in how the Fish Management Plan was implemented and has continuously objected to paying for their share of work they believe is outside the scope of the original fisheries Memorandum of Understanding and Biological Opinion. This conflict is beyond the scope of this report, but should be resolved within the existing organizational structure. At the same time, Carpinteria Valley Water District dropped out of CCRB for financial reasons. CCRB's activities are funded by its members, which in turn are funded by their water rate payers. Carpinteria stopped paying their share of CCRB’s operating costs while still retaining the benefits reaped from the advocacy activities of this group. This action has placed a greater financial burden on the other member units and their rate payers. Community Development Plans Control of growth within an area is, in part, the responsibility of planning and development departments. However, when a development is approved at the planning level, the developer is required to receive notification from the governing water agency in that area confirming that water is available to service the needs of the development. Each water agency does this in a slightly different way, whether through “Can and Will Serve” letters, “Intent to Serve” letters, or a similar document. The Jury learned that water agencies are loathe to be the limiting factor for development. However, they are the responsible agency when it comes to determining whether 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 63 LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE they have adequate water supplies to support the needs of their service areas. Until recently, developments continued to receive approval for water service. The Jury noted that most of these approvals have no expiration date. Documents issued by all member units that approve new water service must include language that limits the permit life. Developments that replace existing structures are approved with the understanding that water for the development is limited to the same amount as is being used under the existing structure. The Jury was told that in some cases, if low flow plumbing fixtures are installed and/or if landscaping is drought tolerant or restricted, water demand at the new development could be less than the existing demand. New construction is minimal in a city such as Santa Barbara that has little room for growth. However, in a newer city such as Goleta, new construction is taking place throughout the community. Citizens of Goleta continue to express their dismay within formal public arenas (such as newspapers, board meetings, and online chat websites) and less formally in casual conversations all over town, at the amount of development that is going on during the worst drought in history. The Jury learned that the Goleta Water District issues its “Can and Will Serve” letters on water resources they predict will be available during a normal weather year. No consideration is given to the possibility of having to supply water to an ever growing community when water shortages occur over many years. The result of this type of approval is that Goleta Water District residents are asked to pay more for water, perhaps at the expense of their quality of life. Future commitments for water service for all water agencies must be based on the water available under the worst case water supply scenario, not under what would be a “normal” year, as there does appear to be a “new normal” emerging.
• OB8
  General Observations Staffing The hiring process for all law enforcement agencies is lengthy due to the stringent qualifications for the positions. Recruitment has become more challenging. There are fewer applicants now than in the past. It was reported to the Jury that, out of approximately one hundred applicants who apply for vacant positions, 75 may qualify and of those 75 who pass the initial screening, 80 percent may be eliminated due to failed background checks or medical issues. The staff interviewed at all facilities were professional, courteous, and knowledgeable. The Jury recognizes the challenges that the decreased staffing has created and commends the staff for the professional manner in which they handle their law enforcement duties. Finally, the jury learned the main jail has a need for more correctional staff, especially female custody officers. Monitoring All facilities appear to make good use of video monitoring equipment, however, not all areas of the facilities have monitoring equipment installed. Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office Coroner’s Office In 1987 the County of Santa Barbara’s (County) Board of Supervisors (BOS) identified an “emergency need” to build a Coroner’s Office. The facility was built with County inmate labor. It has been in continuous operation since 1988. The forensic pathologist who had been commuting to Santa Barbara from Chicago weekly, or as needed, has been hired to work here full time. He is medically licensed in New York, Illinois, and California. The Jury was informed that autopsies are performed on victims of homicide, infants, and adults (under 55 years of age), with no known medical history and as requested. Approximately 120 autopsies are performed each year. The 2014-15 Grand Jury wrote a report identifying several issues with the existing Coroner’s Office facility. A few of the minor findings and recommendations from that Jury’s report were addressed. For example, the opening that previously existed between the office and lab has been walled off. TB testing is now in place and the staff is immunized against common pathogens. There is a backup generator that is adequate to keep refrigeration functioning during a power failure. However, the Coroner’s Office facility remains inadequate in many respects. Most importantly, the ventilation in the autopsy room continues to be deficient and the system has not yet been updated. The Jury learned that the stench can be so bad that employees have had to stand in the parking lot in order to continue working. The BOS has authorized funds to replace the ventilation system, but it is not clear at this time if it will be enough to properly retrofit the current building. Some progress has been made to assess the adequacy of the electrical system 72 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT for the proposed air handling system. Additionally, there is no transition room for staff to remove protective clothing and clean up. At this time, the staff does this outside the building in the open. These minor corrective actions already taken and those in the planning stages are not adequate long term solutions to the poor condition of the Coroner’s Office. The Jury was told that planning for a new Coroner’s Office facility has been raised to the top of the County’s capital improvement project request list. Santa Barbara County Main Jail The Main Jail (Jail) houses pretrial detainees as well as sentenced inmates. Pretrial detainees are arrestees awaiting to post bail, appear in court for arraignment, or stand trial. During the Jury’s inspection of the Jail the Jury learned that up to 75% of the inmates in jail at any time are in this classification. It is a facility with male and female offenders housed separately. While the Jail population fluctuates, the final report by CGL Companies dated October 22, 2015 states that the Jail had a rated capacity of 847 with an average daily population of 8341. The Jail receives prisoners from all areas of Santa Barbara County. The oldest section of the jail is dated and overcrowded. It has insufficient video monitoring as only the main corridors are monitored. Some inmates are sleeping in plastic structures that are on the floor and are commonly called "boats" (see Figure 1). The Jury noted the presence of bedding on the floor in the hallway of one of the newer sections. The Medium Security section was crowded and hot as there is no air conditioning in this section. Figure 1. A Typical “Boat” Other items the Jury noted include:  No drug screening, even though they have admitted drug use in the facility  Fire inspections are done annually  Religious services are provided by volunteer religious leaders The staff was professional and the jail seemed to be well run. Kitchen The newly remodeled kitchen is well designed. It is clean, has new equipment, with ample room to work, and substantial refrigeration and dry storage space. The Sheriff’s Office contracts with a private company, Aramark, for food services. The Jury learned that this service works well, with excellent staff and inmate workers. 1 Jail Staffing and Cost Analysis Santa Barbara County Final Report, CGL Companies, October 22, 2015 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 73 DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT Medical Services Services for inmates are contracted through Corizon Health and provided by: “one full time administrator; one full time Director of Nursing; one on call physician; one subcontracted backup physician; seven full time Registered Nurses; two part time Registered Nurses; three full time Licensed Vocational Nurses; one part time Licensed Vocational Nurse; one full time Administrative Assistant; and three full time Medical Records Clerks. Complete dental facilities are provided for a dentist who is scheduled at the Jail once a week2.” The medical facility has at least one nurse on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A doctor is at the facility three half days a week and on call 24 hours a day for the rest of the week. All inmates are expected to be medically screened on intake. There is no medical dorm, but because the South Dorm is located close to the medical clinic and has wider doors, it is used to house inmates with medical needs and those with limited mobility. This area was in disarray when the Jury visited. Inmates were just standing around with bedding on the floor and the room was generally unkempt. Some inmates were sleeping on the floor with “boats” for beds. The Sheriff’s custodial staff interviewed was satisfied with the job that Corizon Health is doing, stating that “they are as good as any of the other medical service vendors.” Other As in past years, the Jury was notified of and observed overcrowded conditions in the Jail. The new Northern Branch Jail, currently scheduled to be open in 2018, will ease overcrowding. Once the new facility is operational, sections of the existing Jail may be shut down. There is a need for a rehabilitation program for long-term inmates due to AB 109 realignment. The only real job training that they can get in the facility is in the kitchen. Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Substations: Santa Maria Sheriff’s Substation The Santa Maria Sheriff’s Substation is an older facility built in the 1950’s. It is slated for retirement when the Northern Branch Jail is built. The building shows signs of wear (chipped paint, dated equipment). However, it was serviceable, clean, and well maintained for the age of the structure. It was designed to house up to 40 inmates, but is currently only used to house up to ten arrestees (for a maximum of 12 hours) awaiting transfer to the Jail. Since it was downgraded to a holding facility, last year’s Jury recommendations are no longer applicable. The day of the Jury’s visit there was one arrestee with a second being processed. Both were scheduled for transfer to Santa Barbara that day. Two to three custody officers are normally on duty to handle and process the arrestees. Medical Services Along with visual observation, a medical questionnaire is completed during intake. Arrestees with a medical condition such as diabetes are not held in this facility but are immediately transferred to the Jail. Any arrestee needing urgent medical care is taken to Marian Regional Medical Center. If this occurs, medical clearance is obtained prior to transfer to the Jail. Custody officers also look at available previous booking histories for medical problems. 2 http://www.sbsheriff.org/mainjail.html 74 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT Kitchen A fully equipped kitchen is available, but is unused due to reduced numbers of inmates. Inspection records indicated that the kitchen had not been used since April 2015. Bag meals consisting of two sandwiches, fruit, and milk were available and provided daily by the Jail. During the Jury visit, labeling on packages indicated that they had been prepared that morning. Other It was observed that a medication drop box was overflowing outside the main door to the jail. This was brought to the attention of the jail staff. A follow up that day by a Jury member indicated that the drop box was still full. The Jury member followed up again the next morning, and the drop box had been emptied. The Jury is pleased that since its visit, new medication drop boxes (see Figure 2) have been installed at all County locations. Isla Vista Foot Patrol Substation The Isla Vista (IV) Foot Patrol facility has two holding cells that are seldom Figure 2 New used because detainees are transported to the Santa Barbara County Jail. The Medical Dropbox facility is relatively new, well-kept, and located strategically near the border with the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB). There are 21 Sheriff’s Deputies and office staff members assigned to the station, including two deputies on bike patrol. California Highway Patrol Officers and UCSB Campus Police collaborate on a daily basis. A new email system has been established by the IV staff called Property Email Notification (PEN) to notify property owners in advance of large gatherings in IV. This allows property owners time to place temporary protective fencing around their property to protect against vandalism. Isla Vista Halloween activities in 2015 were kept under control. Local, regional and state law enforcement were activated as in past years to deal with potentially large groups. UCSB sponsored several concerts on campus that presented alternative activities for the students. The City of Goleta and IV Foot Patrol enforced restricted parking, which provided an additional deterrent for out of town visitors. Members of the Jury who observed the Halloween activities found law enforcement personnel to be professional and patient in doing a difficult job. New Cuyama Substation There are two Sheriff’s Deputies assigned to the facility. Both were raised in New Cuyama and are active members of the community. Hence, they have a higher awareness of community problems and can quickly address them. It was reported to the Jury that although they have the same problems as the rest of the county proportionally speaking, they make fewer arrests. This is attributed to their involvement with the community. Law enforcement in New Cuyama could be used as a model of true “community policing.” The substation is an adequate facility for its use. It is a rustic looking facility, reminiscent of an old west sheriff's office with the brands of the local ranches burned into the weathered wood paneling. The single holding cell is in good condition. (see Figure 3) No discrepancies were noted. The last time the holding cell was used was in 2011 and that was for less than one hour. 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 75 DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT The officers usually transport arrestees directly to the Santa Maria Sheriff's Substation. Solvang Substation The Solvang Sheriff’s Substation consists of a single holding cell. The facility was clean with no discrepancies noted. The facility is adequately staffed. The staff is satisfied with the facility and stated that it fulfills its purpose. The interview room doubles as a holding cell when there are females or juveniles that need to be separated from other arrestees. Figure 3 New Cuyama Sheriff's Substation Lompoc Substation The Lompoc Sheriff's Substation is located on Harris Grade Road just outside the city limits of Lompoc. Built in 2008, it is a fairly new facility. There are two interview rooms that are used as holding cells. They are secure, but since they are interview rooms, they have no toilet or washbasin. The arrestee has to be escorted to the restroom across the hallway from the interview rooms. It was reported to the Jury that the maximum hold time for an arrestee is six hours. Court Holding Facilities Lompoc Court Holding Facility, Cypress Street The holding facility consists of five cells. Three of the cells are used to separate inmates who cannot be housed with others due to gender, medical or other reasons. There is video monitoring of all the cells, but no recording capability. Other than this one issue, no other deficiencies were noted. Santa Barbara Court Holding Facility, Figueroa Street The holding facility is used to hold inmates while they wait for arraignment or trial. It is located in the basement of the Figueroa Street Courthouse. The inmates are brought from the transport vehicle through a secure area. The deputies constantly have to shuffle the inmates due to lack of space. Inmates in restraints have to be walked across Figueroa Street to the courtroom, posing a security and safety risk to the public. The facility is old and in need of updating. It is an inadequate facility. Santa Maria Court Services Holding Facility, Cook Street The Santa Maria court holding facility is an old but serviceable facility that serves the courthouse in downtown Santa Maria. The facility is only open on court days and can accommodate up to 110 inmates. No deficiencies were noted during the grand jury visit. Santa Barbara County Probation Department: La Posada Juvenile Hall, Santa Barbara La Posada is currently used as a temporary holding facility in Santa Barbara for the South County juvenile offenders held at the Santa Maria Juvenile Justice Center while they wait to attend court. There is a small courtroom used several times a week for the juveniles. This facility was previously the juvenile facility for the entire county. 76 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT The facility has 60 cells which can accommodate up to six juveniles each, if needed. This facility has also been used when the Los Prietos Boys Camp was evacuated due to fires. There is a large modern kitchen, which can prepare a large number of meals three times a day. Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center, Santa Maria This is a maximum security facility for youthful offenders, both male and female, ranging from 12 to 18 years of age. The facility has six units with a total capacity of 140. At the time of the Jury’s visit, there were 54 minors in custody with an average age of 16 years. Medical services are available seven days per week and are contracted with Corizon Health. The facility has an extensive video surveillance system that is monitored centrally by a Sheriff’s Deputy who also controls the movement at each doorway. The Juvenile Justice Center is sufficiently staffed. All areas were clean and well maintained. The older section is used for special group programs for females. No discrepancies were noted. Los Prietos Boys Camp Los Prietos Boys Camp was established in 1944. It is located on seventeen acres in the Los Padres National Forest. It is a correctional/treatment program for males between the ages of 13 and 18. The facility is clean, in good condition, and well organized. The camp is well-staffed and well run. It currently has 47 staff members who supervise approximately 50 boys. It was reported to the Jury that the camp has the capability of housing approximately twice that number of youth and is underutilized. The youth are remanded by the court for either a 120-day or a 180-day program. However, they can be there for up to a year depending on their behavior. The camp is run in a military style with a rigid schedule. This provides structure in the lives of boys who may not have had such structure before. The Santa Barbara County Education Office operates Los Robles High School onsite. The school provides remedial education and helps the youth to continue their high school education while at the camp. High school graduates are offered online college course work. In addition, there is work experience and vocational training in the areas of culinary arts, forestry, wood cutting and splitting for resale, and print shop operations. Scholarships offered by local service organizations are available for camp youth to continue their education. The camp has many counseling programs and services to help the boys prepare to reenter society. Medical and mental health services are contracted through Corizon Health. It was reported to the Jury that almost all of the boys at the camp are there for drug related offenses. Los Prietos Boys Camp is a model for what can be done to help troubled youth in contrast to incarceration only. Municipal Jails City of Lompoc Jail This facility was opened in 1959, has seven cells and is rated for 23 beds. Three cells are designated for females, one of which is a sobering cell. Four cells are designated for males, one of which is a sobering cell. There is also a booking area, a small kitchen, and a sally port, which is a secure, controlled entryway for the intake and transfer of prisoners. Meals are commercial, retail, prepackaged, and frozen (TV dinners). The Jury was told a new software system is 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 77 DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT scheduled to be installed that would update their booking process. There is a motion sensing video monitoring system for the hallways that only comes on and records when it senses movement. On December 3, 2015, the staff of the California Board of State and Community Corrections conducted its 2014-2016 biennial inspection of the Lompoc City Jail. It was found to be compliant with fire inspection, heath inspection, and physical plant inspection. The inspection found the facility to be compliant in all areas in regard to policies, procedures, and practices. It was noted that “The Jail was clean and well-kept.”3 Lompoc Police Department The Lompoc Police Department building was built in 1987 around the preexisting jail. The building has exceeded its planned operational capacity. Several closets have been converted to offices. Dispatch has two workstations that are so close to each other that conversations can be heard over both telephone lines when operators are communicating with officers and callers. The furniture and equipment in dispatch needs to be replaced. There is not enough storage space in the evidence room. Several home-style refrigerator/freezers are being used and are full. The evidence room needs commercial sized refrigerated storage. The Lompoc Police Department has difficulty recruiting new officers because they cannot offer the wages and benefits competitive with departments in other areas of the county and state. The department is using interns to convert all their hardcopy records to digital. All of these issues need to be promptly addressed by the Lompoc City Council who should begin planning to update and or replace this structure. City of Santa Barbara Jail The Santa Barbara Police Department has two holding cells, which are clean, but dated. There is acoustical foam on the ceiling to limit the noise. There is video surveillance of the cells. The cells are used to detain arrestees until they can be transported to the Jail. There are several interview rooms, which are small, but serve their purpose. Arrestees with medical issues are taken to Cottage Hospital for evaluation and treatment prior to final processing. No discrepancies were noted. City of Santa Maria Jail The Santa Maria Police Department that serves a population of over 102,000 people is located in a new, state of the art facility converted from a former aerospace building. The City Council of Santa Maria and the police chief have shown fiscal responsibility in the funding and use of the facility. The department receives additional funding by leasing server space and communication bandwidth to other public service entities. The facility is not completed. It is operational; but cameras, a shooting range, and a few minor projects are still in progress. The facility represents a huge improvement over the old facility, which was built in 1953 for a community of less than 15,000 people. 3 Board of State and Community Corrections, 2014-2016 Biennial Inspection, Lompoc Police Department, January 7, 2016 78 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT The holding facility is used for booking and short-term holds until the arrestee can be transferred. The two cells, designed to hold up to eight arrestees, were unoccupied at the time of the Jury’s visit. The medical intake procedure consists of a verbal questionnaire form as well as observations by the processing officer. The detainees with medical issues are referred to Marian Regional Medical Center. No food is served at the facility since arrestees are only there for a few hours. City of Guadalupe “Secure Bench” The City of Guadalupe does not have a holding cell but has a secured bench, (see Figure 4) that is used to restrain arrestees while they are being booked. The arrestees are processed and transported directly to the Santa Maria Sheriff's Substation or the Jail. If an arrestee is violent or uncooperative, they are kept in a patrol vehicle until transported. The area that includes the bench has video surveillance. The only issue noted was the transport time, which can take a police officer out of the city for extended periods. It was reported to the Jury that on the day before its visit, the turnaround time to take an arrestee to the Jail took nine hours due to the travel distance and the Figure 4 The “Secure Bench" time it took to obtain medical clearances. When the Northern Branch Jail is built, it will alleviate the extended turnaround time problem
• OB9
  Recidivism Rate Even though it is currently operating well below capacity, the LPBC has proven to be a good investment of taxpayer funds. The recidivism rate of the LPBC graduates is well below the state average. The Jury believes that the LPBC recidivism rate is also well below the rate of those youthful offenders processed through County juvenile hall. However, because of the complexity of the calculations, the Jury was unable to obtain quantitative evidence to support this belief. In order to compare rates for different facilities, identical calculation methodology is required. The Jury found that different methodologies exist at the State and Federal levels and even between facilities within the county. The County Probation Department is aware of this shortcoming and is working actively to implement a uniform recidivism computation and reporting methodology. The following table shows the recidivism rate of LPBC graduates for calendar year 2014. The data is sorted by court location. The recidivism rate is calculated using any re-offenses (not including technical probation violations), during 2014 of graduates from the LPBC from 2012 through 2014. 84 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOS PRIETOS BOYS CAMP Table 1. Recidivism Rate by Court Location Santa Barbara Lompoc Santa Maria Total Total LPBC Graduates 108 60 104 272 Number of Graduates with No 76 44 74 194 Re-Offensesa Number of Recidivists (One or 32 16 30 78 More Re-Offenses) During 3 Year period Percent Recidivism 30% 27% 29% 29% a This includes 19 youth with a technical probation violation. As mentioned earlier, the recidivism rate for LPBC graduates is much lower than that of California as a whole. The three-year California juvenile recidivism rates for the six year period ending in 2007 are shown on Figure 11. Although it has declined somewhat since 2007, the statewide rate as of 2008 exceeded 70%. The comparable figure for LPBC graduates in 2014 was 29%. Figure 1. Juvenile Recidivism Rates for California Preadmission Screening This low recidivism rate is partially due to the intensive screening process used to evaluate 12012 Outcome Evaluation Report, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Office of Research, October 2012 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 85 LOS PRIETOS BOYS CAMP candidates before admission which includes a medical/physical examination. The most current LPBC Screening form is attached as Appendix A. In addition, the process includes psychological evaluations and mental health history to determine suitability. LPBC personnel also interview youth to determine their level of maturity and commitment to complete the program. In 2015, 121 youthful offenders were referred for admission suitability evaluation. Of these candidates, 11 (or 9%) were rejected. Rejections occurred either because of the type of offense (arsonists and sex offenders are not eligible), a physical problem, or because the sentence was too short for the program to be effective. Other Support Programs A major study of the effectiveness of various intervention and treatment programs was conducted by M. W. Lipsey, Director, Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University in 20092. His conclusions are: “Counseling interventions had the largest positive effects on recidivism decreasing it by 13%, followed by Multiple coordinated services (12%), and Skill building programs (12%). The counseling interventions that were most effective were group-based, mentoring focused, and those that had mixed combinations of various types of counseling.” To their credit, LPBC staff have implemented a number of support programs designed to assist the youth in their care in recognizing how their behavior contributed to their incarceration, and, more importantly, how they can modify their behavior in the future. These programs include: individual and family counseling, Moral Reconation Therapy, three different substance abuse counseling programs, a weekly public speaking and leadership skills program, and the “Aftercare” program which helps youth transition back into the community. LPBC also provides some vocational training and a rigorous online education program (Los Robles High School) that operates 12 months of the year and is administered by the Santa Barbara County Education Office. Freedom 4Youth, a non-profit corporation, offers a post incarceration mentorship program that is only available to youth who live in South County. This or a similar mentorship program should be offered to North County youth, as well. These worthy programs are well documented elsewhere and will not be discussed further in this report. Economic Analysis The Jury believes that the Los Prietos Boy’s Camp is run effectively and efficiently and is a significant asset to the community. The LPBC operating cost is more than offset by savings to society resulting from the higher education level and lower recidivism rate of young men that have participated in the LPBC program. During 2015, an average of 37 young men were held in custody at LPBC at any given time. This utilization rate is about 70 percent of one dormitory’s possible holding capacity (without making 2 Victims & Offenders, Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2009, pages 124-147, The Primary Factors That Characterized Effective Interventions With Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview, Lipsey, M. W. 86 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOS PRIETOS BOYS CAMP capital expenditures). This equates to an approximate annual cost of $151,000 per occupant3 ($414/day). This is $32,000 less than the $183,000 ($501/day) per occupant to incarcerate a youth at Juvenile Hall. The LPBC facility includes two dormitories. One dormitory, in use currently, is capable of housing 52 youth at a time. The second dormitory, currently not in use, could house an additional 44 youth, for a total of 96 youth if both facilities were placed in operation. The smaller, second dormitory, once known as the Boys Academy, was used to house the youngest offenders, keeping them separate from the older boys. It closed three years ago because of a decrease in the number of younger juvenile offenders. This dormitory could be used if the program were expanded to house females, keeping them separate from the boys. California State regulations regarding facility staffing levels also affect the LPBC housing capacity. Current staff is able to care for a maximum of 50 youth. Any youth population greater than 50 would require hiring additional staff. The LPBC annual operating costs, ($5.6 M for fiscal year 2015-16) can be divided into two categories: variable and fixed. The variable costs are proportional to the number of youth and include items such as food, medical care, uniforms, and transportation. The fixed costs are the cost of the physical plant, the beds, buildings, lockers, showers, etc. As discussed above, a sharp cost increase occurs at about 50 inmates, due to the requirement to open the second dormitory. Because of State regulations, cost of the staff is considered a fixed cost for the sake of this discussion, when 50 or fewer youth are housed. As an example, adding or subtracting one inmate would not affect the size of the staff. The cost/inmate, however (the total annual facility operating cost divided by the number of students) decreases as shown in Table 2 since the fixed expenses are amortized over a larger number of inmates. Table 2 LPBC Incarceration Cost vs. Number of Youth No. of 20 30 37 40 50 55 60 70 80 Youth Total 5.08 5.30 5.60 5.66 5.88 10.00 a 10.20 a 10.40 a 10.60 a Cost (Million $) Annual 254,000 176,667 151,351 141,500 117,600 181,818 170,000 148,571 132,500 Cost Per Inmate ($) a Estimated As mentioned earlier, average LPBC utilization in 2015 was 37 youth, as shown in Table 2 with cost/inmate of approximately $151,000. Total facility operating cost is approximately $5.6 million. Capacity exists at LPBC to increase utilization of the facility by 30% without increasing operating cost significantly. If the facility were operating near maximum capacity, housing 48 3 $5.6 M LPBC annual budget for an average of 37 incarcerated youth for 2015. 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 87 LOS PRIETOS BOYS CAMP youth, the annual cost/inmate would decrease to about $120,000/year). Total operating cost would increase only 3% to $5.77 million/yr. As discussed in a previous section titled Preadmission Screening, the Jury learned that 9% of the 121 candidates for LPBC commitment were rejected for various reasons. We also learned that 90 boys, or 74%, were ordered to LPBC. The remaining 20 (16.5%) were screened and accepted but, for various reasons, were NOT ordered to the camp. It is this population that the Jury believes constitutes the candidate pool for increasing LPBC utilization. Additional Methods of Increasing Camp Utilization Another possible way to increase use of the existing facilities would be to accept females. Currently, some females are sent out of state to group homes using state and federal funds. A soon to be published UCSB report, entitled “Evaluation of Female Specific Services: Transforming the Juvenile Justice Approach to Girls, 2016” Executive Summary concludes “that a local option, where girls could receive intensive mental health treatment would be preferable to out-of-county group homes”4. The unused dormitory at LPBC would require almost no modification to accommodate females. Accepting females would give them access to the same intensive mental health services available to the boys. Therefore, the cost for female inmates would be similar to the cost for males. The need for a facility to house juvenile female inmates is worthy of further study. Although, over the last several years, the number of female offenders has decreased steadily, this year, the number has increased sharply. Even so, the number of female offenders in Santa Barbara County is not presently sufficent to warrant establishing a separate program for them. The minimum number of female youth for a cost-effective program is approximately 20. It is possible, however, that an arrangement could be reached with the probation departments of Ventura and San Luis Obispo Counties to house and rehabilitate qualifying females from their jurisdictions. The Jury recommends that this possibility be explored. The Jury’s preliminary study indicates that a joint program would benefit all participants. Another possible way to increase use of the existing facilities would be to offer programs of shorter duration. Existing programs of 120 and 180 days could complemented be with 60 and/or 90 day programs. The Jury recommends that this possibility be explored as well. Benefits to Society When youth graduate from Los Prietos Boys Camp, (and, in many cases, subsequently from high school) the positive effects are not only felt by the juvenile but also his family. These benefits cannot always be quantified as they may involve improved self-esteem, self-discipline, a resolve to move on to college or a job, and/or to contribute to his family. One youth, when asked what 4 Year 2: Systemic Probation Analysis & Girls Group Evaluation, Evaluation of Female Specific Services, Transforming the Juvenile Justice Approach to Girls, 2016 Executive Summary, UCSB and Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness, Draft 88 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOS PRIETOS BOYS CAMP he would do differently when he got out of Camp said he wanted his behavior not "to make my mom cry again." See Appendix B for similar comments from other youth incarcerated at LPBC. However, numerous papers and studies show that society as a whole clearly benefits in a multitude of financial ways. Before they were incarcerated at LPBC, the majority of the youth were substance abusers, were truant (some for as long as a year), and were found guilty of various violations of the law. This report does not attempt to analyze every detail of the individuals placed at the Camp. However, it is accurate to state that they were all in danger of ending up as statistics, whether it be as high school dropouts, perpetrators of further crimes, victims of crimes, and/or as inmates of local, state, or federal prisons.5 Beyond that, the youth could become a financial drain on various levels of government and its taxpayers in numerous ways, whether as inmates of jails and prisons, welfare or food stamp recipients, and/or as low wage earners. “The typical career criminal causes $1.3–$1.5 million in external costs; a heavy drug user causes $370,000 to $970,000. Eliminating duplication between crimes committed by individuals who are both heavy drug users and career criminals results in an overall estimate of the “monetary value of saving a high-risk youth” of $1.7 to $2.3 million.”6 These and more data may be found in Appendix C, "Memo from Joyce E. Dudley, District Attorney, County of Santa Barbara, March 30, 2016". Based on its investigation, the Jury strongly believes that the Los Prietos Boys Camp is a valuable asset that not only changes the lives of the youth it incarcerates, it also contributes to saving an appreciable amount of money for taxpayers and all levels of government.
• OB10
  The Jail provides the following core set of prisoner intake functions:  Identifying the prisoner  Developing the prisoner’s record  Conducting medical and mental health assessments.  Determining the prisoner’s threat to public safety and his/her security requirements  Identifying sex offenders, sexual predators, and vulnerable inmates  Scheduling transfers to the long-term facility  Identifying and validating security threat group membership The intake process at the Jail operates 24 hours a day with approximately 40 to 60 arrestees arriving at the Jail daily. Many are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, have physical injuries, or are mentally ill. These factors make the intake process challenging for the SBSO and Corizon staff. According to SBSO staff, the Jail is understaffed, under-funded and not well designed to carry 1 Jail Staffing and Operating Cost Analysis, Santa Barbara County, Final Report CGL Companies, October 2015 108 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL out all of their required responsibilities. Individuals who need significant medical attention at the time of intake are generally not accepted in the Jail. Instead they are taken to the local hospital for medical evaluation and stabilization. The intake screening would then be performed at the Jail when the inmate returns from the hospital. Once an inmate is admitted to the Jail the County of Santa Barbara is responsible for the cost of any outside medical care. The Health Services Administrator (HSA), a Corizon employee, is a Registered Nurse (RN) and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the medical programs at the Jail. The HSA has the authority to oversee the administrative requirements of the programs, as well as recruitment, staffing, data gathering, financial monitoring, and enforcing policies and procedures. Processing Procedures The inmate intake procedure is a twofold process that includes a medical evaluation and a classification procedure that requires the cooperation of both SBSO staff and Corizon staff. The first step starts with a “SBSO Santa Barbara Sheriff Medical Pre-Screening” questionnaire, (see Appendix A) used to determine if there are current health issues that require prompt attention. In the past, this prescreening was performed by custody officers. According to the contract, SBSO staff receives up to 24 hours of training on medical issues annually by Corizon. However, this training is not adequate for SBSO staff to make many medical decisions. Therefore, deputies are no longer doing the medical intake prescreening on new bookings. The Jury learned that as of April 11, 2016, Corizon RNs are now performing the entire medical intake assessments. This is intended to ensure that medical needs are being met at intake. The medical prescreening questionnaire is an assessment tool used to determine if the inmate is ambulatory, alert, sick, suicidal, intoxicated, on medication, or has a history of drug or alcohol abuse. The name of the arrestee is entered into the Jail Management System (JMS), an inmate management software package, to determine if the arrestee has a previous record. If so, and if the arrestee has a significant medical condition such as heart problems, diabetes, drug/substance abuse history or psychological issues that were identified and recorded, the JMS would “red flag” the inmate information for ease of future retrieval. During the pre-screening, the detainee is asked about medication or street drugs recently used. Depending on the types of medications the detainee claims to be using, the nurse attempts to verify the prescribed medication by calling the detainee’s doctor, clinic, or pharmacy. After conducting the medical prescreening using the SBSO questionnaire, the Corizon RN also evaluates whether the arrestee has significant medical issues that need to be addressed. This second medical evaluation uses Corizon’s “Intake and Receiving Screening form CS1101” (see Appendix B). Based on this evaluation the RN refers any arrestee with an urgent medical need to the Corizon contracted medical doctor (MD) for a follow up appointment. The Medical Process Overview, Medical Referral Sources, flow chart provided by SBSO staff (see Appendix C), does not reflect the new medical intake procedure and needs to be revised. . An arrestee who discloses a history of drug or alcohol abuse is assessed with the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scales (COWS) (see Appendix D.) According to Corizon staff, if an arrestee is identified as having a history of substance abuse, there is a “protocol” to ensure they are monitored closely. For example, if it is determined that the arrestee is a habitual intravenous drug user, according to the Corizon staff “the inmate is to be placed in observation and 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 109 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL medication ordered to help reduce withdrawal symptoms.” These procedures are not outlined in the Receiving Screening Process (see Appendix E). These protocols are only referenced in the Manual Section 303.Use of Sobering/Observation Cell. The Jury observed, that although SBSO and Corizon are supposed to work together, this cooperative collaboration has not always existed. SBSO staff has not always followed established oversight procedures to ensure Corizon staff are operating in accordance with their contract. Fundamental responsibilities may not be completed during a work shift. With proper monitoring, problems can be alleviated. SBSO staff does not have checklists or guidelines to reduce the risk of incomplete evaluation by Corizon staff. The Jury recommends that the Sheriff Office update Appendices C and E. Additionally, two signature blocks, one for medical clearance staff the other for the custody officer prior to classification should be added to the forms in Appendices A and B. A critically important next step, after the arrestee is medically cleared, is classification. The classification which is conducted by SBSO Staff determines where in the jail the new inmate will be housed. During this time the inmate is issued a wristband that includes pertinent personal information and moved to a holding cell. Whether the inmate is a new arrestee, or a reoffender, they go through the same intake process. For the safety of all concerned, it is imperative that this two-step process requires close collaboration between Corizon and SBSO staff to ensure that inmates entering the Jail are medically cleared and classified before placement in the general population. Protocols When the Intake Screening Process is completed, information is documented in the JMS which includes general health concerns. Also documented are external observations of behavior, appearance, deformities, injuries, and skin lesions, which might be indicators of illicit drug use. Inmates entering the Jail are tested for tuberculosis if they are expected to be there longer than 72-hours. In the case of a female arrestee, gynecological and pregnancy issues are noted. If there are any concerns noted during the medical intake process, the Corizon staff takes necessary steps to reconcile these issues. The medical intake RN may refer the inmate/patient to the MD or Nurse Practitioner (NP), give them needed bridge medications, or initiate other treatments or protocols. The MD or the NP sees the patients that have been referred to them as scheduled by the intake nurse. This procedural change is an improvement that will result in inmate/patients receiving the most appropriate level of care whether it is urgent, emergent or routine. If the medical review is not conducted in accordance with written procedures, and discrepancies are not corrected, situations can develop with unforeseeable complications. Intake Process Failure During the intake review, the Jury observed that medical records in the Jail are stored using an antiquated, paper system. According to Corizon and SBSO staff, medical records are not computerized for quick access and both recognize this as a serious deficiency. If further information is needed during a medical intake, Corizon staff must manually retrieve medical records which are stored in paper form in the medical unit. Although the JMS flags chronic medical conditions, the information is frequently limited and insufficient to medically evaluate 110 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL inmates with major medical issues. If the medical records were stored electronically, medical intake evaluations could be conducted after first reviewing their previous medical history in the jail. SBSO staff have established procedures and protocols on how to process inmates. However, the Jury found that at least in one case, the intake procedures were not followed and an inmate was released into the general population without a completed medical screening. It is vitally important that every step of the medical intake process be conducted for each arrestee. A deviation from the approved process may result in an arrestee’s significant medical needs not being met when in the custody of the county, resulting in an intake process failure and possible major liability. All medical screening forms need to be signed and dated prior to classification. The classification by a custody officer must confirm that medical clearance has been completed prior to placement of the inmate to the appropriate location in the Jail. A combination of events, such as the arrestee not responsibly and accurately reporting their medical condition, Corizon staff not completing their medical evaluation, and/or custody staff not overseeing the Corizon process, could result in intake process failure. The Manual, Chapter 3, Section 303 (Use of Sobering/Observation Cell), outlines procedures to be used when an inmate is admitted to the Jail while under the influence of alcohol or other substance. Determining the level of intoxication or drug effect is subjective. When in doubt, in order to err on the side of safety, the use of sobering/observation cells is imperative. The consistent use of these cells ensures that inmates who are at risk are properly monitored.
• OB11
  During the Jury’s investigation of the LUSD, the following deficiencies were identified:  Conflicts of Interest  Financial Irregularities  Inadequate and Unenforced Internal Financial Controls  Hostile Work Environment  Other Unethical Behavior  Lack of Ethics Training Conflict of Interest Government Code § 1090 generally prohibits school board members (and other public officials) from having a financial interest in any contract their board makes. Under GC § 1091.5, a school board member whose spouse is employed by the school district has a prohibited financial interest in any board contract that impacts the spouse’s financial interest, unless the spouse was employed by the district for at least one year before the member joined the board. GC § 1097 provides that an official who willfully violates, or aids or abets in a violation of GC § 1090 is punishable by a fine or imprisonment, “and is forever disqualified from holding any office in this state.” (See Appendix A.) Mr. Bill Christen was elected to the Board in December 2012, five months after his spouse was hired as Director of the Special Education Department (SED) in July 2012. Mr. Christen twice voted to increase the salaries of management and confidential employees who were members of ALSA, including his spouse. On January 28, 2014, Mr. Christen moved to approve a one-time four percent off-schedule salary increase, and on May 12, 2015, Mr. Christen voted with the Board to unanimously approve a 4.25 percent compensation adjustment to begin immediately and another 4.25 percent salary increase scheduled to begin on June 1, 2015. In all of these instances, Mr. Christen’s spouse benefited from the salary increases. Through his attorney, Mr. Christen has denied breaking any conflict of interest laws, and has pointed out that those laws are “complex,” with “many exceptions.” The Jury does not express or imply any opinion on whether Mr. Christen violated those laws. As the California Supreme Court put it, the Jury’s role here is “to act as the public’s ‘watchdog’ by investigating and reporting on the affairs of local government.” It is the role of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney (DA) to determine whether any criminal conduct occurred, and the Jury defers that determination to the DA. Whatever that determination may be, however, the Jury believes that even the appearance of a conflict of interest seriously harms the public’s confidence in the Board of Education. The Board can reduce the risk of similar harm in the future by implementing the Jury’s recommendations below. Financial Irregularities and Lack of Internal Financial Controls After interviewing staff from the business office and reviewing financial records, the Jury was unable to determine exactly how expenditures of the LUSD’s General Fund are being allocated and tracked. Past LUSD independent financial audits have noted a lack of adequate controls and use of public 126 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT funds.2 A more specific audit of the General Fund expenditures by the Board would serve to clarify the use of public funds. Some witnesses expressed concern that, since Mr. Christen became a member of the Board, the department where his wife is the director—the Special Education Department (SED) received favoritism. The Jury’s investigation found that allocations from the LUSD general fund to the SED (designated as “Contributions” in Table 2) increased over 85 percent in the first year after Bill Christen was elected. The Contributions revenue represent the LUSD General Fund and the Expenses represent the Total Expenditures for the SED. Table 2. LUSD Special Education Income and Expendituresa a From: “Fiscal Staff\Comparative Analysis\Routine Restricted Maintenance Comparative Report, three years” The Jury also found that the SED Director submitted invoices for payment of over $283,000 for books without any preapproval of the expenditures by the Board. This bypassing of budgetary controls was also indicated in two of the “Observations” of an external Audit ending June 30, 20153 which are summarized below, 1 “Segregation of Duty - System Access-
• OB12
  In our review of system accessibility in purchasing and accounts payable systems, we noted that various personnel have access to functions not necessary for their assigned responsibilities. Specifically, we noted that at least one accounts payable clerk has access to AS400, the purchasing module, which allows the clerk to create new vendors.” 2 2010-2011 Independent Financial Audit, Glenn Burdette Public Accounting Agency and 2014-2015 Independent Audit, Vavrinek, Trine, Day and Co. LLP 3 2014-2015 Independent Audit, Vavrinek, Trine, Day and Co. LLP 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 127 LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 “Disbursements
• OB13
  Four of 15 disbursements tested were not pre-approved by the ASB. The invoice date on these disbursements was prior to the purchase request approval date indicating that the order was placed prior to approval.” The Jury also found a lack of oversight in LUSD’s payment of travel expenses. For example, District Policy AR 3350 states, “…if an employee stays with a spouse the reimbursement is linked to one-half of the double room rate.” (See Appendix B.) Yet the District pre-paid the full double room rate when the SED director traveled to New Orleans for an SED conference accompanied by her husband, a Board member, for a Board-approved conference. (See Appendix C.) The LUSD should have paid for only half of the hotel bill. No internal controls exist by which the LUSD can collect these pre-paid expenses from their employees. Travel funding comes from the General Fund and must be approved by the Board. In addition, the Jury found that employees continue to be away from work without approval or appropriate “time away” forms being submitted. The issue was noted in an independent audit dated June 30, 20154 and continues to be an ongoing problem. “Payroll - Vacation Requests- Observation: During our testing of vacation request procedures, we noted vacation request forms are not utilized consistently for requests of vacation. Without these forms, there is no evidence of prior approval of vacation requests by the employee's immediate supervisor.” The Jury recommends that the LUSD Board ensure that existing vacation and attendance policies are enforced. Hostile Work Environment Former and current employees interviewed by the Jury reported a hostile and confrontational work environment. Several key employees gave this as their primary reason for resigning. Among the contributing factors often cited by LUSD employees were the increasingly contentious working relationship between the Superintendent and Mr. Christen, and between the SED director and her colleagues. LUSD employees stated they did not have recourse to prevent these problems, for “fear of retaliation.” LUSD has a “Nondiscrimination in Employment” policy, but it expressly prohibits only “unlawful” conduct. That legalistic limitation undercuts the policy’s usefulness in preventing and remedying workplace conduct that may be harmfully abusive, but not clearly unlawful. LUSD could easily plug this potential loophole by clarifying that the policy prohibits individuals at every level of the organization from engaging in abusive conduct as defined in Government Code section 12950.1, subdivisions (b) and (g)(2): “conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include … verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would 4 Ibid 128 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.” Lack of Ethics Training The Jury learned that the Board has not required ethics training for itself or the certified staff employees. An ethics training course is available online, at no cost, from the California Fair Political Practices Commission5. This training course covers subjects such as conflict of interest, and greater awareness of those subjects might have avoided or limited the unethical conduct described in this Report. Although this training is not specifically required by AB 1234, the Jury recommends that the Board adopt a policy that requires such training.
• OB14
  During our testing of vacation request procedures, we noted vacation request forms are not utilized consistently for requests of vacation. Without these forms, there is no evidence of prior approval of vacation requests by the employee's immediate supervisor.” The Jury recommends that the LUSD Board ensure that existing vacation and attendance policies are enforced. Hostile Work Environment Former and current employees interviewed by the Jury reported a hostile and confrontational work environment. Several key employees gave this as their primary reason for resigning. Among the contributing factors often cited by LUSD employees were the increasingly contentious working relationship between the Superintendent and Mr. Christen, and between the SED director and her colleagues. LUSD employees stated they did not have recourse to prevent these problems, for “fear of retaliation.” LUSD has a “Nondiscrimination in Employment” policy, but it expressly prohibits only “unlawful” conduct. That legalistic limitation undercuts the policy’s usefulness in preventing and remedying workplace conduct that may be harmfully abusive, but not clearly unlawful. LUSD could easily plug this potential loophole by clarifying that the policy prohibits individuals at every level of the organization from engaging in abusive conduct as defined in Government Code section 12950.1, subdivisions (b) and (g)(2): “conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include … verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would 4 Ibid 128 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.” Lack of Ethics Training The Jury learned that the Board has not required ethics training for itself or the certified staff employees. An ethics training course is available online, at no cost, from the California Fair Political Practices Commission5. This training course covers subjects such as conflict of interest, and greater awareness of those subjects might have avoided or limited the unethical conduct described in this Report. Although this training is not specifically required by AB 1234, the Jury recommends that the Board adopt a policy that requires such training.
• OB15
  The County Ordinance enacted in 2003 provided for enforcement by the Planning and Development Department along with support by the County Agricultural Commissioner. Taking a leading role in the enforcement and preservation of the oaks, the County Agricultural Commissioner works with Planning and Development when oak tree protection is required. Working primarily with vintners to save and protect the Valley and Blue deciduous oak trees, these two departments also oversee and protect many of the larger and most historic trees. The regrowth of newly planted and distributed oaks numbers in the thousands. This is achieved by a partnership with the non-profit Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau and local schools to educate students and plant trees throughout the county. In addition, much of the protection of large and stately oaks is provided by citizens who send in complaints when oaks are threatened.
• OB16
  Keeping the public informed is a major function of the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) staff at the EOC, located at 4408 Cathedral Oaks Road in Santa Barbara. Emergency 911 calls can be connected to the EOC. Reverse 911 calling can be engaged and staff are in the process of implementing the use of Everbridge in the near future. Everbridge is a mass notification system that can notify people of emergencies by text or email. The EOC is currently monitoring software for an Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) system, which will provide vital seconds of advanced warning for those who receive the message on their computer or mobile phone to drop, cover, and hold. The EEW system is being designed to, in the future, stop trains, automatically open garage doors, elevator doors and the doors to fire stations. The national emergency announcement system equipment (seen and/or heard over radio and television) is also housed at the EOC. EOC staff conducted a Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment concerning the coastline and determined that installation of warning sirens at the beach (like there are in Hawaii and elsewhere) is not necessary. Staff also encourages the public, through press releases and other means, to be prepared for emergencies by maintaining kits in their homes, businesses, and cars. Lastly, the OEM updates its website, http://countyofsb.org/ceo/oem/, in near real time with wind, wave, and other advisories. The EOC is a meeting facility and communications center where County staff and others can work together to manage major emergencies. Coordination of emergency efforts is the primary reason for the existence of the EOC. Types of major emergencies are listed on the EOC website where organizational structures are documented in the 254 page Emergency Management Plan. The Jury was informed that the plan is in the process of being updated. Policies and guidelines in the plan comply with federal, state, and county emergency protocols that have been 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 141 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER ACTIVATION established to provide consistency in terminologies, job descriptions, communication paths, and legal requirements. Among other things, the guidelines enumerate the "seats at the table", or agencies involved, depending on the type of emergency. Personnel contact lists for government, media, and supporting private contract agencies are maintained at the EOC. When the EOC is activated, the logistics, operations, finance, fire, law enforcement, and public information functions each has a designated functional area in the EOC incident management room as indicated in the following diagram, obtained from the OEM’s Emergency Management Plan. SANTA BARBARA OPERATIONAL AREA EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER DIAGRAM Generalized Emergency Operations Center layout (not to scale) 142 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER ACTIVATION Since its construction in 2011, the EOC has been activated several times to offer support in response to community emergencies such as wildfires and drought emergency declarations. The EOC is also used for training exercises that simulate how County staff, other agencies and first responders will respond to various emergencies such as an earthquake, tsunami, wildfire, flooding, or pandemic influenza. For example, the EOC was activated on November 26, 2013, for an Offshore Platform Security Threat Awareness and Response (OPSTAR) exercise. Although there are no national requirements for emergency training of elected officials, they are encouraged to participate in training exercises whenever available. In recognition of this fact, the OEM is planning to host two separate training sessions in 2016. Also, in conjunction with the State, OEM is preparing to conduct an oil spill workshop that will include training for elected officials as the response requirements are fundamentally different for that type of disaster. The Jury supports these efforts. THE REFUGIO OIL SPILL The most recent EOC activation, on May 21, 2015, was in response to the Plains All American Pipeline oil spill near Refugio State Beach. The activation raised questions about the role of government in the activation and use of the EOC facility. The Jury learned that in this case, the County EOC was acting as a “landlord” to the Unified Command that was formed in response to the oil spill. This operational method is typical of such incidents as mandated by federal, state, and local laws and conforms to the Santa Barbara County Operational Area Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) http://countyofsb.org/ceo/asset.c/276 . The OSCP, which is presently being updated, was prepared in accordance with Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). It identifies four participants in the Unified Command in the event of a marine oil spill. The participants are the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), the State Incident Commander (SIC), the “Responsible Party” (RP), and the County of Santa Barbara, known as the Local On-Scene Coordinator (LOSC). This list of participants is per a written Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), found on page 43 of the OSCP, between the OEM and the State of California’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR). The MOU follows Title 14 of the CCR and allows County input into the management of any oil spill within its boundaries. In the case of the May 2015 oil spill, the RP was Plains All American Pipeline. The principal advantage to having the RP participate as part of the Unified Command is that they are, in most cases, liable for all damages and costs incurred as a result of an oil pollution incident. Having the financially responsible party in the room, “with a checkbook”, can expedite logistical activities and reduce response time. The presence of Plains All American Pipeline in the same room with the federal, state, and local on-scene coordinators is understandable and in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations and plans. In addition, it is also in compliance with the OSCP. Because the spill affected the ocean, the Coast Guard was the lead agency, and FOSC, and had 51% of the vote in the Unified Command. Therefore, the Coast Guard was, in effect, renting the EOC from the County during the incident. More information about the Refugio Oil Spill and clean up can be found at: http://www.refugioresponse.com/go/doc/7258/2522638/ 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 143 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER ACTIVATION
• OB17
  The Jury found 20 of the 26 AVARs were replaced as recommended. The remaining AVARs, located in Montecito and Carpinteria, are on the project work agenda. The project is presently ahead of schedule with the last phase scheduled for completion in 2017-2018. The last six valves are in especially difficult areas to reach. Some are in vaults below ground and some are buried in the middle of Highway 192. The municipal water districts test the water quality weekly at many points along the conduit and at its end point in Carpinteria Reservoir. No contamination has been found. Replacement of the six remaining valves will require a section of the conduit to be shut down and the water drained. This will require coordination with CalTrans as the roadway may be closed for an unknown amount of time while the valves are moved and repairs made. The Jury was informed that although the last six valve replacements are not scheduled to be completed until 2017-2018, work has not started for several reasons. The process of saving and diverting the water drained from the conduit requires substantial planning and agency cooperation. Drought conditions have added to the challenges of replacing the valves because current low groundwater levels may not be sufficient to meet customer needs during the shutdown. If the repairs are done before the drought ends, the work may result in water customers beyond the repair areas to be without water service while the conduit is shut down. Lastly, draining the conduit could result in extra concern for firefighters in obtaining the necessary water in the event of a fire.
• OB18
  The Waterfront Department (Department) of the City of Santa Barbara (City) is operated as an enterprise fund and includes three divisions: the Waterfront Business Management Division (Business), the Waterfront Facilities Management Division (Facilities), and the Waterfront Harbor Management Division (Harbor). As an enterprise department, all expenses incurred by the Department must be paid out of revenue brought in by the Department. No operating expenses are paid out of the general fund of the City, and all funds generated must be kept within the Department. For Fiscal Year 2015, the Department realized a net operating gain of $252,178 between total department operating revenue of $15,106,278 and total department operating 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 147 CITY OF SANTA BARBARA HARBOR OPERATIONS expenses of $14,854,100. According to staff, any net operating gains are put into the Department’s capital fund each year. $4,810,766 of the Department’s operating revenue, or approximately 32%, was derived from slip fees and slip transfer fees. The Jury noted in its review that one required project has a positive effect on the Department’s budget every year. Twice a year, in the spring and fall, the Federal Channel at the entrance to the harbor must be dredged. Because the Harbor is designated as a “harbor of safe refuge”, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has performed this work at no cost to the City of Santa Barbara or its citizens. Historically, the Corps has allocated approximately $2,500,000 per year for dredging the Federal Channel, including bathymetric surveys, biological surveys, permitting, and other dredging related activities. Department staff expects that the City would incur these expenses if it had to take over dredging the Federal Channel from the Corps. The Jury also learned about another source of revenue for the Department, the revenue derived from cruise ships ($5 per person including crew). Within the last few years, the number of cruise ships approved to dock at Santa Barbara increased from four or five per year to almost thirty. The Waterfront Director decides how many cruise ships will visit and includes the number in the Department’s budget presentation to the City Council each spring. No cruise ship visits are approved during the busy summer season, May to September. Department staff stated that they have not received complaints about the cruise ships and encouraged any interested citizen to request the topic be added as an agenda item at City Council or Harbor Commission meetings. In addition to the City Council of Santa Barbara, the Department is overseen by the Harbor Commission (Commission), which is a volunteer advisory board. The Commission consists of seven commissioners appointed by the city council. The Commission is responsible for making recommendations to the city council on all matters pertaining to the operation of vessels and watercraft within the Harbor and the Department including, but not limited to, rules and regulations, rates and fees, budgets, equipment, facilities, materials and supplies. In the rare case of a slip contract termination, the Commission has the final word. Payment of Property Taxes on Boat Slips In addition to transfer fees and monthly slip rents, amounts that can often add up to thousands of dollars1, complainants questioned why the County of Santa Barbara can collect property taxes on the slips, as they are owned by the City of Santa Barbara. It is general knowledge that state and local governments are exempt from property taxation.2 Why is it, then, that the City can rent out its property (the slip) and require the slip holder to pay property taxes? The jury learned that when the boat owner rents a slip at the harbor, he or she obtains a private interest in government owned property. Because he or she has the exclusive right to that slip by renting it from the City, he or she must pay unsecured3 property taxes. This is in accordance with the regulations of the California State Board of Equalization, which define “taxable possessory interests” to include the right to “actual physical occupation” of publicly-owned 1 Appendix A is the current City of Santa Barbara Waterfront Department Slip Fee Chart, based on City Council Resolution No. 15-055, June 24, 2015. 2 http://www.boe.ca.gov/lawguides/property/current/ptlg/ccp/XIII-3.html 3 https://www.countyofsb.org/ttcpapg/taxcoll/glossary.aspx 148 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury CITY OF SANTA BARBARA HARBOR OPERATIONS property “pursuant to rights not granted to the general public,” “such as … a permit to use a berth at a harbor” (California Code of Regulations, title 18, section 20). Each slip has a parcel number. Every January, Harbor staff sends the County Assessor’s office a list of slip numbers and the name(s) of the people who rent them. This information is used to generate tax bills (see Appendix B for sample tax statements). Operability of Vessels The Jury looked into questions raised concerning the operability of vessels in the Harbor. It was found that operability is regulated by Santa Barbara Municipal Code (SBMC) TITLE 17 Section 17.20.255 (B), titled “Moored Vessels Must be Operable”4. The Harbor enforces operability in several ways. When the vessel is put into the slip, and when/if it is sold, operability is proved. If a complaint is received from other vessel owners or the public, Harbor staff investigates and follows up to prove operability. In addition, “Marina 1” is currently undergoing renovation. (A marina, in this case, being the “finger’ where smaller boats are docked in slips.) As it is renovated, all vessels are required to relocate to other areas of the harbor, thus proving their operability. Lastly, staff makes numerous visual observations of vessels daily. Live-Aboard Permits Complainants to the Jury expressed concerns with the perception that there are more people living on their vessels than are permitted by city regulations. SBMC TITLE 17, Chapter 17.185 contains the rules for people living on their vessels (commonly known as “live-aboards”). Up to 113 permits may be issued by the Harbor at any given time. Per Department staff, 100 live- aboard permits were active at the writing of this report. Besides the applicant (who must be the current slip permittee), up to four other occupants may be added to the live-aboard permit. In addition to following up on any complaints, staff monitors live-aboards during the thousands of foot patrols they conduct in the harbor throughout the year. In fact, staff informed the Jury that they appreciate the live-aboard population because they are “the eyes and ears” of the harbor, and are often the first to observe and report fires and other safety issues. Vessel Registration The Jury learned that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)6 of California requires that every vessel not documented by the U.S. Coast Guard be registered with the DMV. With a few exceptions, every sail powered vessel over eight feet in length and every motor driven vessel regardless of length, must be registered and have a CF (vessel registration) number provided by the DMV. This is the vessel equivalent of automobile registration. The CF number must be on the bow of the vessel and include a current registration sticker. It is the policy of Harbor staff, beginning in January, to go through the entire harbor once a year, and verify that all vessels are registered and are in the correct slip. Violators are given a phone call, a letter, and/or a posting on their vessel. Ultimately, tickets are issued if the CF stickers are not current. 4 http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=12166 5 Ibid. 6 https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/boatsinfo/boatreg 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 149 CITY OF SANTA BARBARA HARBOR OPERATIONS

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.