2016-2017 Final Report

The Board of Supervisors response to F1.1 stated that the Public Defender’s Office does not have the personnel to track whether every defendant has paid. Defendants have no incentive to pay, and there are no consequences for non-payment.

1 There is no written succession plan or procedure for the replacement of executive staff. 25

1 The San Joaquin County independent self-governing special districts can be subject to fraud due to lack of oversight and the lack of documentation required for accounts payable.

1 Members of the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin are not required to attend a thorough orientation or ongoing training. 27

Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) cases

1 The Sheriff’s Department property room does not have a first-aid kit and up-to-date safety manuals and policies and procedures.

Juvenile cases The District Attorney’s office will send and Evidence Release Memo on Juvenile cases based on case adjudication. Property may be purged upon receiving these releases. If an Evidence Release Memo is not received, each agency may look up the case status in HOD. Once the case shows closed in HOD, the investigating agency may purge the property. For cases without a suspect, property may be purged based on statute of limitations

Drug diversion cases

Bench warrant vs. arrest warrant

Search warrant All evidence taken as part of a search warrant must have a court order (1536 PC) prior to the return or purging of any property. If the original warrant service included a return (1536 PC) order, the property can be released by an evidence memo issued by the District Attorney upon case adjudication. All property considered to be stolen/recovered will be photographed and released to the rightful owner, refer to Attachment 3.

The property room does not currently have the minimum staffing level to ensure that property room functions are carried out with the highest standards and integrity.

General purge considerations a) Statute of limitations considerations b) Agency may initiate c) Currency

Morale among employees of the Housing Authority has improved, increasing employee satisfaction.

Photograph and release option 68 Purge criteria Absent a directive by the District Attorney, the following criteria shall apply permitting the purging of property or evidence.

An aggressive approach to development has resulted in the submission of a grant application to begin the process of Sierra Vista Homes redevelopment.

Seek additional resources and in-kind services to supplement the program.

The current Executive Director is now the spokesperson for the Housing Authority, resulting in a clarification of roles.

Assign a school liaison for our Academic/Site Manager to communicate.

Communication between the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and the current Executive Director has improved, resulting in less confusion between leadership and staff.

Allow GECAC to identify the site as an after school location.

The Housing Authority has improved relationships with public and private community organizations, which creates opportunities for public and private partnerships.

Provide daily custodial services (usually just a change in cleaning schedule).

Lease agreements are being enforced rigorously, leading to increased tenant pride and safety.

Allow access for deliveries during the school day (if needed)

The General Counsel’s time cards do not include sufficient detail, as required by the contract.

Provide convenient access to bathrooms during program hours.

Provide a location for the pick-up of correspondence and messages.

Assist in the identifying and introduction of partners and collaborators to assist in program GECAC SHALL:

There is no written succession plan or procedure for the replacement of executive staff. 25

AVL on all fire vehicles and AVL capability at dispatch centers can reduce response times.

: There is no documentation of material and equipment movement between ROV and the storage facilities. Agency Response: “Partially Disagree. Information Systems Division partially disagrees with the Grand Jury’s finding. ROV does utilize automated asset tracking for certain equipment and materials that move between the ROV warehouse and other locations during the election process. Automated asset tracking occur each election for key election equipment and materials. For example the movement of Voter Touch Screens and the rolling boxes (used for distribution of materials) are documented via the asset-tracking software during the election process. However, it is accurate to say that the movement of ROV materials and equipment outside of the election process are not documented.”

The quality of boards and commissions directly affects the quality of agencies in San Joaquin County. 26

The full Board of Supervisors interviewed the candidates for the Port Commission, strengthening that selection process.

With a budget of nearly $50 million, the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin is one of the largest and most impactful agencies in the county, requiring a more thorough candidate selection process.

The “Fact Sheet” for the Housing Authority provides minimal details about the duties, and does not allow potential commissioner candidates to fully understand the requirements of the position.

Members of the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin are not required to attend a thorough orientation or ongoing training. 27

There is an insufficient number of staff to consistently and efficiently review cases to purge items from inventory.

There are delays and difficulties in obtaining disposition and authorization information from the District Attorney’s Office.

Full Court Enterprise has been a barrier to the efficient and effective disposition of evidence in the county.

The Sheriff’s Department property room does not have a first-aid kit and up-to-date safety manuals and policies and procedures.

San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Review and Investigation of Responses to the 2015-2016 Final Grand Jury Report The 2015-2016 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) issued its final report in June 2016, which consisted of three investigations, four law and justice reports, and six follow- up reports on government agencies, county departments, school districts and special districts throughout San Joaquin County. These investigations and follow-up reports generated 21 findings and 21 recommendations. Submission of responses to final reports are an important component of the Grand Jury process. Governing bodies of public agencies and elected officials are required to respond to grand jury findings and recommendation that pertain to matters under their authority. California Penal Code (PC) section 933(c) requires that governing agencies submit their responses to the presiding judge of the superior court within 90 days after the Grand Jury issues a final report; elected officials must respond within 60 days. Elected officials or governing agencies must specifically respond to each finding and each recommendation. PC section 933.05(a) requires that for each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity must indicate one of the following:  The respondent agrees with the finding; or  The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, specifying the portion of the finding that is disputed and including an explanation of the reasons for the dispute. For each grand jury recommendation, PC section 933.05(b) further requires that the responding person or entity must report one of the following actions:  The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action; or  The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation; or  The recommendation requires further analysis with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the final report; or  The recommendation shall not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation included. The succeeding grand jury may choose to review the agency’s responses to the findings and recommendations and may elect to confirm compliance, investigate further or issue a new report if necessary. The 2016-2017 Grand Jury reviewed each of the responses to the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Final Report and conducted follow-up investigations to confirm that the respondent completed all required actions. Some of the follow-up reviews required interviews, additional documentation and site visits to discuss clarification of last year’s agency responses. All agencies except one complied with the response requirements. LAFCo did not respond within 90 days but did respond after additional requests. The following reports include all Findings and Recommendations from the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Final Report, the agency responses, and the 2016-2017 Grand Jury determinations of the agency responses. Case 1401 Consolidate the Eight; Case 1412 Stockton Municipal Utilities Department; Case 1503 San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters; Case 1506 San Joaquin County Public Defender Fees; and Case 1507 Homelessness in San Joaquin County Law/Justice Juvenile Justice Detention Facility . The complete agency responses are located on the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury website under “Previous Grand Jury Rosters and Reports” at: www.sjcourts.org 130 Disclaimer The agency responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations are reprinted exactly as filed with the court. The agency responses and grand jury findings and recommendations are matters of public record per California Penal Code section 933(c) (d). Follow-up Report to the 2015-16 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Case 1503 San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters, Make Every Vote Count Preface This report contains the methods the 2016-2017 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) used to determine if the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) responded to the 2015-2016 Final Grand Jury Report, “San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters-Make Every Vote Count”. Grand Jury recommendations, as well as The Board of Supervisors responses are presented verbatim in this report. A complete copy of the original report and the BOS responses can be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/previous Glossary BOS Board of Supervisors ROV Registrar of Voters VBM Vote by Mail 132 Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current Grand Jury reviewed the 2015-2016 report No.1503 and the Board of Supervisors responses. The responses were reviewed for compliance, responsiveness and implementation of the recommendations. The 2015-2016 Grand Jury issued findings and recommendations that were meant to strengthen the transparency and accuracy of the Vote by Mail (VBM) ballots. Members of the 2016-2017 Grand Jury were invited by the ROV to serve as participants in the San Joaquin County Election Observation Panel on Oct. 24, 2016. The panel was designed to test the pre-election systems and processes. Grand Jurors marked real ballots, scanned the ballots and confirmed the final tabulation. Grand Jury members were invited to observe the election night ballot processing at the ROV warehouse on Nov. 8, 2016. After the close of the polls, jurors observed the process of receiving sealed ballots from precincts and checking for tears and unusual markings. Ballots were taken to the scanner for tabulation of the ballots. Ballots were then loaded onto pallets for storage. ROV staff knew their assignments and carried them out effectively. Grand Jury members observed the organization, security and care taken by the ROV to ensure that this county’s election processes were fair and accurate. The ROV should be commended. Recommendations, Agency Responses and Grand Jury Results Findings F1.1: There is no documentation to verify when and by whom VBM ballots are picked up by ROV staff from the Postal Service. Agency Response: “Agree. Information Systems Division concurs with the Grand Jury’s finding.” F1.2: The public was not informed for 328 days after election certification about the unusually high number of late ballots from the 2014 Gubernatorial Primary Election, June 3, 2014. Agency Response: “Agree. Information Systems Division concurs with the Grand Jury’s finding. The Information systems Division acknowledges that a press release was not generated notifying news organizations of the large number of VBM ballots received by San Joaquin County the day after the 2014 Gubernatorial Primary Election. It should be noted that the late receipt of VBM ballots was fully disclosed to the Secretary of State’s Office on June 4, 2014 (the same day the late VBM ballots were received.)” Recommendations R1.1: By September 1, 2016, ROV develop written policies and procedures for daily tracking of the VBM ballots picked up at the post office. Tracking should include who picked up the ballots, when they were picked up, how many were received and when they arrived at the ROV office. Agency Response: “This recommendation has been implemented. The recommended policies and procedures for the daily tracking of the VBM ballots picked up at the post office by the ROV staff were developed in April 2016. A complete copy of the procedures and associated forms were provided to the Grand Jury on April 21, 2016. The new procedures and associated forms were fully utilized by the ROV staff during the 2016 Gubernatorial Primary Election (held on June 7, 2016.) However, it should be noted that the day after the 2016 Gubernatorial Primary Election (June 8, 2016), ROV received over 1,400 VBM ballots that were post marked on June7th (Election Day). This is the same situation experienced by San Joaquin County in 2014 when ROV received 799 VBM ballots from the post office the day after the election. Even with ROV’s implementation of detailed record keeping at the behest of the Grand Jury, the County still has no control over the timeliness of the VBM processing/delivery by the post office. Fortunately, the Legislature now allows ROVs statewide to process VBMs postmarked on or before Election Day, as long as the VBMs are received by ROV within three days of the election. This change in California Election Code became effective on January 1, 2015; a direct response by the Legislature to the late delivery of VBMs to ROVs that occurred across California.” 134 2016-2017 GRAND JURY RESULTS The ROV received 2,976 VBM ballots after Election Day (between 11/9/2016 and 11/18/2016). (Sample page from the new Registrar of Voters Mail Pick Up Log) The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. R1.2: By September 1, 2016, ROV develop and implement a written policy to publicize election discrepancies before election certification. Agency Response: “Agree. To determine if a “best practice” already exists for publicizing election discrepancies, San Joaquin County canvased ROVs statewide. San Joaquin County was unable to find any county in California that has a written policy addressing this matter. San Joaquin County ROV strives to be exceptionally transparent during each and every election. With that continuing goal in mind, ROV will develop a written policy to publicize all noteworthy election discrepancies before the certification of an election. The new written policy will be developed and implemented by September 1, 2016.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. Findings F2.1: The ballots were moved from a secured 24-hour surveillance facility to a less secure location. Agency Response: “Agree. Information Systems Division concurs with the Grand Jury’s finding. The Stockton Metropolitan Airport warehouse (the warehouse temporarily used by the ROV) is not equipped with either a security system or camera system. However, it should be noted that unrestricted access to the Stockton Metropolitan Airport warehouse does require a background check and the Airport grounds (including the area surrounding the Airport warehouse) are patrolled 24-hours per day. Also, it is important to note that the ballots for the June 3, 2014 election were moved from a warehouse previously leased by ROV, to an interim warehouse facility located on the Stockton Metropolitan Airport grounds nearly a year after the June 2014 election process was completed. The ROV stored election materials at the Airport warehouse facility for approximately 10 months while the new ROV warehouse was prepared for occupancy (installation of a security system, electrical and other construction activities required for occupancy.)” F2.2: The warehouse video was not viewable because the system overwrites itself every three to four months. Agency Response: “Agree. Information Systems Division concurs with the Grand Jury’s finding.” F2.3: There is no documentation of material and equipment movement between ROV and the storage facilities. Agency Response: “Partially Disagree. Information Systems Division partially disagrees with the Grand Jury’s finding. ROV does utilize automated asset tracking for certain equipment and materials that move between the ROV warehouse and other locations during the election process. Automated asset tracking occur each election for key election equipment and materials. For example the movement of Voter Touch Screens and the rolling boxes (used for distribution of materials) are documented via the asset-tracking software during the election process. However, it is accurate to say that the movement of ROV materials and equipment outside of the election process are not documented.” Recommendations R2.1: By September 1, 2016, ROV store all ballots and equipment in a secured location with 24-hour surveillance. Agency Response: “This recommendation has been implemented. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors approved a lease agreement for a new ROV warehouse in October 2015. Tenant improvements 136 were required for the new warehouse to meet ROV’s operational and security needs. The landlord made the required tenant improvements to the facility and the improvements were completed in March 2016. Tenant improvements made to the new ROV warehouse include implementation of a 24-hour video camera system that records the activities in the new warehouse, as well as installation of a monitored security alarm system. In April 2016, ROV ballots and equipment were moved from the Airport warehouse facility to the new ROV warehouse. As a result of these actions taken by the County, this Grand Jury recommendation was addressed in April 2016.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. R2.2: By September 1, 2016, ROV develop and implement a policy to keep and store all surveillance data per canvass procedures for the storage of all ballots. Agency Response: “This recommendation will be implemented by September 1, 2016. Information Systems Division/ROV will develop and implement a policy for the retention of surveillance video related to the storage of ballots. The surveillance video that is retained will cover the critical periods in the election process. The County will retain this video for a period of time that will correspond with the retention period for the related ballots and voting materials. The new written policy will be developed and implemented by September 1, 2016.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. R2.3: By September 1, 2016, ROV develop and implement a chain of custody for all materials brought into and removed from the storage facilities. Agency Response: “This recommendation will be implemented by September 1, 2016. For the last several years, Information Systems Division / ROV has utilized automated asset tracking to monitor the chain of custody of critical equipment and materials that move between the ROV warehouse and other locations during the elections process. As noted previously, ROV does not currently document the “chain of custody” for some election materials that move between the ROV facilities once an election is complete. San Joaquin County ROV will modify its existing chain of custody practices so that the movement of critical election materials between the ROV facilities after an election is documented. The revised procedures will be developed and implemented by September 1, 2016.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. The Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code sections 911. 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code sections 924.2 and 929). Follow-Up Report to the 2015-2016 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Case 1506 San Joaquin County Public Defender Fees Preface This report contains the methods the 2016-2017 Grand Jury used to determine if the Board of Supervisors responded to the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Final Report No 1506 “San Joaquin County Public Defender Fees.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations, as well as the Board of Supervisors responses are presented verbatim in this report. The 2016-2017 Grand Jury follow-up results are presented after the agency’s response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the agency’s response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org Glossary BOS Board of Supervisors County/SJC San Joaquin County Court San Joaquin County Superior Court Feasibility Study Assessment of the practicality of a proposed plan or method Indigent A person with little or no income MOU Memorandum of Understanding describes a bilateral or multilateral agreement between two or more parties 139 Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current Grand Jury reviewed the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report No. 1506 and the Board of Supervisors responses. Jurors reviewed data and documentation provided by the Public Defender’s Office, conducted interviews and attended court arraignments. Findings and Recommendations, Agency Responses and Grand Jury Results Findings F1.1 There are no established policies or procedures to assess indigent defen dants’ ability to reimburse the Public Defender’s Office for court appointed counsel. Agency Response: “Disagree. There is a policy and procedure to assess fees. In March of 2010, the Department requested, and the Board of Supervisors approved R-10-95, which permitted San Joaquin County courts to assess a registration fee of up to $50 upon appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 987.5(a.) The assessed fee was to be paid at the Office of Revenue and Recovery, a division of the Treasurer-Tax Collector. A survey of other counties’ procedures and policies also lead our Department to the generation of a flat fee, rather than an hourly rate. In August 2010, a letter was sent to each judge, commissioner and court personnel requesting that the court assess a flat fee of $125 for a misdemeanor case and $175 for a felony case to every defendant who had the ability to pay. This amount included the registration fee pursuant to Penal Code section 987.5(d.) The location for payment was modified after it was determined that all fees paid by defendants for public defender services to the Office of Revenue and Recovery were to be applied to all other balances first to other county agencies before being credited to the department of the Public Defender. Other counties have also experienced this issue. For this reason, the court was notified that the location of payment was changed to the Public Defender’s Office. This procedure continued for a period of time until the court gradually stopped informing and assessing defendant’s registration fee or the flat fee. It is the intention of this Department to immediately resume the procedure by requesting that the court assess and order the indigent defendants to pay the flat fee of $125 for a misdemeanor and $175 for a felony to each client. The flat fee of $50 would be payable at the Public Defender’s Office. The money collected would be tracked by the Public Defender’s fiscal staff. The Public Defender’s Office does not have the personnel to track whether every defendant has paid. The Department will monitor the ongoing assessment of the fee through the Courts.” F1.2 There is no communication and oversight among the Public Defender’s Office, the County Administrator’s office and the Courts for the collection of the fees assessed to the indigent defendants. Agency response: “Disagree. As stated in Response to F1.1 above, the Public Defender’s Office established policies and procedures in 2010 to assess and collect fees from indigent defendants, which had also been communicated to the San Joaquin County Superior Court. The Department intends to resume such procedure by September1, 2016. In addition, County Administration reached out to other County departments to determine if a coordinated effort between several departments might make a County Evaluator position more effective. In short, the answer is no, primarily due to the differences in eligibility and the Department’ ability to provide services and payment plans based upon existing legislation.” F1.3 Financial information required to determine indigence in the County is not being verified. Agency Response: “Disagree. Financial information, which includes household income, assets, (real estate, vehicles, money in the bank) and debts, is currently obtained from the majority of defendants in custody, during a Pretrial Services Interview conducted by the Pretrial Services Unit, a branch of the San Joaquin County Probation Department. At that interview, the defendant are told that the information reported will be shared with the court to determine eligibility for pretrial release. A defendant has an incentive to disclose employment and asset information, as those are evidence of stability and support a pretrial release. Penal Code section 987.8 states that the court can order a defendant to appear before a county officer to make inquiry into the ability to pay all or a portion of legal assistance, impose liens, preside over noticed hearing to determine ability to pay and set amounts to be reimbursed and order the sum reasonable and compatible with the defendant’s financial ability. Penal Code section 987.8(e) outlines the defendant’s rights at a hearing. This process requires additional court appearances. According to the Assistant Treasurer-Tax Collector, a position comparable to a County Evaluation Officer within San Joaquin County is a Senior Collection Clerk, which has a total cost of $82,491 per year and the total cost of a Collections Supervisor is $95,254 per year. It is anticipated that the County would need to hire six Senior Collections Clerks and one Collections Supervisor to staff San Joaquin County three courthouses (Stockton, Lodi and Manteca). In addition, the Office of Revenue and Recovery states that they would charge our Department their hourly rate to track down delinquent payments. It would also be ineffective to vet financial information through these positions. The majority of defendants appointed to the public defender’s office have low to no income, outside of public assistance. It is anticipated that the majority (estimated at over 80%) of defendants would be financially unable to pay more than the flat fee that our Department has previously implemented. In addition, the majority of defendants accused of felony charges that remain in custody have lost any job that they may have had. A flat fee has greater likelihood of being recovered, eliminates the need for county officers and ability to pay hearings and is an equitable cost for indigent defendants. At the completion of the defendant’s case, the Court will be asked to access the full $125 or $175, minus the $50 registration fee, payable to the Public Defender’s Office.” 141 Recommendations R1.1 By September 1. 2016 the Board of Supervisors conduct a feasibility study to determine if the county can support a Chief Financial Evaluation Officer or designee to vet defendants’ ability to pay, and track and collect public defender fees. Agency Response: “This recommendation was implemented by County staff. As stated above, to vet defendants’ ability to pay, track and collect public defender fees would be costly and ineffective due to most indigent client’s modest income to no means. The ability to pay assessment to determine if defendants are able to pay the registration/flat fee can be conducted by the Court, using the Pretrial Services information and any follow up with the defendant in court. Fees can be collected at the Public Defender’s Office and tracked by the Defender’s fiscal staff.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action required. R1.2 By December 31, 2016 the Board of Supervisors develop policies and procedures to vet defendants, track and collect fees due the county from the indigent defendants for court appointed counsel. Agency Response: “This recommendation will be implemented by September 1, 2016. The department will follow- up with all parties involved with the policies and procedures outlined in F1.1.” See section 2016-2017 Discussion, Findings and Recommendations. R1.3 By December 31, 2016 the Board of Supervisors implement a policy to vet defendants, track and collect assessed fees from the indigent defendants. Agency Response: “This recommendation will be implemented as described in Response F1.1 above. The Department will follow-up with all parties involved with the policies and procedures outlined in F1.1.” See section 2016-2017 Discussion, Findings, and Recommendations. R1.4 By December 31, 2016 the Board of Supervisors develop a MOU with the court to inform all defendants of the assessable fees. Agency Response: “This recommendation will be partially implemented. The Board of Supervisors has approved the $50 registration fee, and in the past the courts have worked with the County on the process of 142 assessing the $125 flat fee for a misdemeanor case and the $175 for a felony case (with credit given for the $50 registration fee). The Public Defender’s Office intends to re-implement this process by September 1, 2016 and will work with the Presiding Judge in reinstituting the assessment procedure to be part of the court hearings going forward.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. 2016-2017 Finding and Recommendation Finding F1. The Board of Supervisors response to F1.1 stated that the Public Defender’s Office does not have the personnel to track whether every defendant has paid. Defendants have no incentive to pay, and there are no consequences for non-payment. Recommendation R1. By December 31, 2017, the Board of Supervisors implement a po licy to track and collect all assessed fees for the services of the Public Defender and forward total assessed fees and total collected fees to the County Administrator. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (penal Code sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The Board of Directors of the French Camp McKinley Fire District shall respond to all findings and recommendations in this report. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable José L. Alva, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 West Weber Avenue, Suite 1306 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at [email protected] 143 Follow-Up Report to the 2015-2016 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Case 1507 Homelessness in San Joaquin County Preface This report contains the methods the 2016-2017 Grand Jury used to determine if the Board of Supervisors responded to the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Final Report, “Homelessness in San Joaquin County: Time for Collaboration, Commitment and Communication.” Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations, as well as the Board of Supervisors responses are presented verbatim in this report. The current Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency’s response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the agency’s response may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org Glossary CDBG Community Development Block Grant CDD Community Development Department CVLIHC Central Valley Low Income Housing Corp. ESG Emergency Solutions Grant HOME HOME Investment Partnership HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 144 Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current Grand Jury reviewed the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report No. 1507 Report, the Board of Supervisors responses, the San Joaquin County Homelessness Task Force Annual Report and Board of Supervisors Task Force Presentation dated November 16, 2016. The Grand Jury attended Board of Supervisors meetings. Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses and Grand Jury Determinations Findings F1.1 The Consolidated Plan does not contain a clearly defined strategic plan to address homelessness. It does reference a “Homeless Prevention Plan.” (See Appendix I) Agency Response: “Disagree. The Consolidated Plan is not intended to be a single document that contains the plan to address homelessness in the region. It identifies local needs and how funds given by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will help address these needs, and it addresses how the San Joaquin Urban County will use the funds for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) programs. The San Joaquin Urban County is comprised of the unincorporated San Joaquin County and the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Manteca, Ripon, and Tracy. The cities of Lodi and Stockton operate their own programs through HUD and submit their own Consolidated Plans. “Programs covered under the Consolidated Plan do not solely address the homelessness issue.The ESG program is the only program that is operated for the benefit of the homeless by providing funds to sub-recipients who offer emergency housing, permanent housing, and supportive services to the homeless. The CDBG program targets programs that benefit low and moderate income households and communities, and the HOME program is used to assist low income persons in housing acquisition and rehabilitation. The Homeless Prevention Plan is part of the Continuum of Care program that is just one tool for helping to address the homelessness issue. The Continuum of Care covers the whole County including all the seven incorporated cities, but only in relation to the homelessness issues that pertain to Community Development and the agencies and nonprofits who work with us. The Homeless Prevention document is a guideline that contains general goals and objectives of the homeless prevention plan. It states what the programs can do for the target population, who qualifies for the benefits, and how the benefits can be implemented.” 145 F1.2 County staff members responsible for addressing homeless programs were not involved in the creation of the Consolidated Plan and have limited working knowledge of the report. Some statements in the Plan, i.e. expanding the number of beds available, are not substantiated. Agency Response: “Agree. There has been turnover at the top of the Neighborhood Preservation division of the Community Development Department, which administers the various HUD programs. Vast institutional knowledge in the programs and operations were lost in this change in personnel. This happened abruptly and was not anticipated. As such, it was a difficult process to get the requires annual documents and reports submitted to HUD on time (March, 2015 through March, 2016). Vacant positions are being filled, and once fully staffed, the programs will run more efficiently. With the help of consultants, staff is becoming more knowledgeable of the programs.” F1.3 No upper management County staff member is involved with the “Community Coalition on Homelessness Interagency Council.” Agency Response: “Agree. The Community Coalition on Homelessness Interagency Council is a presidential cabinet level organization for the federal government. This Council reference was erroneously used by consultants for CDD in the Consolidated Plan to describe the local jurisdictions, agencies, and nonprofit organizations who meet to discuss the various issues affecting the community. The Community Development Department (CCD) is in the process of reevaluating the operations of the Continuum of Care to ascertain improvements to the efficiencies and communications among the local jurisdictions, agencies, nonprofit organizations, and community groups to enhance the coordination and operations of the programs funded. After this reevaluation (still underway), it is anticipated that there will be an increase in the number of times that all of these interested organizations will meet to discuss and plan strategies to address homelessness, and have a more efficient coordination among those involved. “Currently under consideration by the County’s Homelessness Taskforce, upon such time that its members have determined that the Taskforce has fully realized its purpose and intent of its original work plan, the Task force may transition into becoming and serving as the Continuum of Care program.”- F1.4 The scope of the problem is compounded by a lack of accurate and comparable data. Agency Response: “Agree. There is an annual count and a bi-annual count of the homeless. Both counts are done by Stockton based, Central Valley Low Income Housing Corp. (CVLIHC). The annual count is for the sheltered homeless, but CDD is not involved with it. The bi-annual count is for the 146 sheltered and unsheltered homeless and CDD takes part in this count. Both counts are The counts are all done in January. The next biannual count required by HUD will be in January 2017.” Recommendation R1.1 By January 1, 2017, the County develop and implement a strategic plan to address homelessness in San Joaquin County that includes measureable long-and short-term goals and objectives with an established timeline and an annual evaluation process. Agency Response: “This recommendation will be implemented but not by January 1, 2017. It may take longer than six months for the current Homelessness Task force to establish a strategic plan. The County does not intend to implement this recommendation on its on. In February of 2016 the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors recommended the addition of the Homelessness Task Force with two Board members assigned. The Homelessness Task Force is a discretionary committee. The role of the Board members is to be a convener among the local non-profit organizations and governmental bodies in yielding positive outcomes and best practices in reducing homelessness in San Joaquin County. The County has a commitment to the development and implementation of a strategic plan to address homelessness in San Joaquin County though extensive involvement and leadership of the Homelessness Task Force, which is a county-wide collaboration of representatives from a cross-section of public and private organizations dedicated to addressing homelessness. The County does not intend to implement this recommendation on its own. There have been 8 meetings of the Homelessness Task Force so far. In addition to the full Task Force, there are work groups in the following areas: 1. Outreach/Temporary Housing Work Group 2. Data Collection Work Group 3. Diversion Court/Law and Justice Work Group 4. Prevention Work Group Each of these work groups is working on short term actions but keeping long-range vision in mind.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. Finding F2.1 Departments within the County’s organizational structure have no consistent or focused strategies to work together in addressing homelessness. Agency Response: “Agree. HUD disperses funds separately to CDD and to the cities of Stockton and Lodi. These funds are to be used for specific purposes according to strict requirements from HUD. When submitting annual reports to HUD regarding the usage of funds, there are guidelines and milestones that each County department must reach in order to continue receiving funds. CDD files one report with HUD that covers the unincorporated County and the five cities we represent. These requirements from HUD are unique to the program funds received. The HUD requirements are the first priority to be achieved. Therefore, to reach the goals and objectives for the program funds related to each department, coordinating with agencies and nonprofits that have direct involvement with the funds granted is a higher priority than coordinating with other County departments. Also, because there is a limited amount of time and money that can be used to administer these programs, (based on the number from 2014-15, CDD gets approximately 14% of the HUD funds to cover administrative costs, this number was approximately $476,000, which did not fully cover the salary portion for the Neighborhood Preservation Division). There are also very limited resources that can be devoted to coordination with other departments.” F2.2 There is no lead County department or agency coordinating efforts directed toward the homeless. Agency Response: “Agree.” Recommendation R2.1 By January 1, 2017, The Board of Supervisors should appoint one individual within County government to oversee all matters related to homelessness reporting directly to the County Administrator. That person needs the authority and resources to bring together the necessary entities to develop and implement the County’s Strategic Plan on Homelessness. Agency Response: “This recommendation will not be implemented. Homelessness is a broad problem which requires community based solutions through a collaboration of committed public and private partners. Focus from a variety of sources, such as those public and private organizations contributing to the ongoing collaborative effort of the Homelessness Task Force, is necessary. The Board of Supervisors is acting in a leadership role on this matter and will coordinate as appropriate with other government entities, including City Leadership, non-county organizations, the County Administrator, and County Department Heads to help develop a Strategic Plan on Homelessness.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. The County Administrator responded on February 28, 2017 to the Homelessness Task Force recommendation with the statement “During the discussion with the County Departments Heads, there was support for the creation of a position to oversee homelessness within the County. The position is not being recommended at this time by the County Administrator since we are in the 148 midst of budget preparation for 2017-2018 and would appreciate Board direction on adding ongoing position costs for services that are occurring in various County Departments.” Recommendation R2.2 By January 1, 2017, the Board of Supervisors fund a position to oversee this initiative, even if it requires reprioritizing and reallocating other resources. Agency Response: “This recommendation will not be implemented for the reasons stated in Response to R2.1” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. Findings F3.1 The City of Lodi along with private individuals and agencies have taken encouraging steps to address the homeless issue. The success Lodi has achieved can be attributed to the coordinated efforts of public agencies, non-profit groups and churches (See Appendix 2). Agency Response: “Agree. The County agrees with the finding that the success the City of Lodi has achieved can be attributed to the coordinated efforts of public agencies, non-profit groups and churches.” F3.2 The County’s “2010-2015 Consolidated Plan” listed seven “Weaknesses in Organizational Structure” to address the homeless population and actions necessary to eliminate those weaknesses. The County’s “2015-2019” Consolidated Plan” provided no evidenced (sic) the issues were addressed. Agency Response: “Partially disagree. The seven actions that should be considered to improve effectiveness, what the Grand Jury refers to as the “Weaknesses in Organizational Structure”, are some of the drawbacks to the HUD program as a whole. The weaknesses listed in the Consolidated Plan are:  Coordinate decision making: Each jurisdiction makes their own funding decisions because they are separately responsible for the funds they receive.  Expansion of outreach: New nonprofit organizations may not be aware of the HUD funds available to become involved.  Improve timely implementation of projects: Some problems that cause implementation issues are funding from multiple sources, loss of staff, banking of funds for larger projects, and the length of time and permitting requirements to develop housing projects. 149  Expand availability of technical assistance: Developers need outreach and technical training for project implementation.  Advocate for changes in Federal regulations that discourage interagency cooperation: The way that HUD funds are disbursed encourages agencies to be grant-driven in their approach.  Partnerships needed: Need to find ways to encourage public/private partnerships in developments.  Expand interagency communication: Communication with and among nonprofit organizations needs to be enhanced. This discussion of the strengths and gaps or weaknesses in the delivery system is a requirement of HUD as part of the Consolidated Plan report. These “weaknesses” are institutional in nature, and thus, do not have a readily available solution. They are a part of the system because of the way HUD operates and oversees each program. They cannot be addressed as an action item in one document from one jurisdiction and be expected to be solved by the next report cycle. By acknowledging it in the Consolidated Plan, it is a way to document the inherent deficiencies in the program that will need to be addressed sometime in the future by HUD. San Joaquin County does not have a timeframe for when HUD my address these issues.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. Recommendation R3.1 The County should use Lodi’s efforts as a framework to start a strategic planning process. Agency Response: “This recommendation will be implemented but not by January 1, 2017. The Homelessness Task Force includes representatives of public and private agencies involved in the Lodi effort and a presentation summarizing Lodi’s effort has been made to the Homelessness Task Force. This recommendation has not been implemented, but will be proposed to the Homelessness Task Force.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required Recommendation R3.2 By January 1, 2017, the Board of Supervisors formulate a plan to eliminate its self- identified “Weaknesses in Organizational Structure.” Agency Response: “The recommendation will not be implemented for reasons explained in Response to F3.2.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required 150 Conclusion The San Joaquin County Homelessness Task Force 2015-2016 Annual Report Dated November 16, 2016 listed 58 member organizations comprised of government, non-profit housing/service providers and other community benefit groups. The report’s ‘Statements of Purpose’ includes: “San Joaquin County and the cities within San Joaquin County should participate in and contribute toward a shared, coordinated plan to address homelessness in San Joaquin County”. The Board of Supervisors and the Task Force are focusing on the issue of Homelessness and have brought many organizations together to help formulate a coordinated plan. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (penal Code sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code sections 924.2 and 929). Follow-Up Report to the 2014-2015 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Case 1412 Stockton Municipal Utilities Department Preface This report contains the City of Stockton’s response to the 2015-16 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury), Follow-Up Report regarding improvements needed at the City of Stockton’s Municipal Utlilities Department (MUD). The city was unable to complete the 2014-15 report’s recommended improvements in the prescribed time because additional tests and studies were required. Grand Jury recommendations, as well as the City of Stockton’s responses are presented verbatim in this report. The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determinations follow the agency’s response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the agency’s response may be found on the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org. Glossary H2S Hydrogen Sulfide IPS Intake Pump Station OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration MUD City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department NES Network Environmental Systems, Inc. Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2016-2017 Grand Jury reviewed:  2014-2015 Grand Jury Case Number 1412;  The city’s responses to Case Number 1412;  2015-2016 Grand Jury follow-up report;  The City’s responses to the 2015-16 follow-up report;  The Collections Division, Gravity Sewer Collection Systems 7 and 8, Hydrogen Sulfide Study, conducted by staff ;  The Levee Settlement Problems and Improvements Study of the Delta Water Supply Intake Plumbing Faciltiy conducted by HDR; and  MUD Monthly Operations and Maintenance Reports. The 2016-2017 Grand Jury verified that the additional studies had been conducted, and that the four remaining recommendations had been implemented. Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses and Grand Jury Determinations Finding F1.1 The city said the Intake Pump Station (IPS), ground settling draft plan to help predict future conditions is in need of further development with anticipated completion in the summer of 2016. At that time, MUD will prepare a summary report of ground settling at the IPS and recommended associated repairs and costs for the City Council. Agency Response: “HDR,Inc. was retained by the MUD to study the impacts of levee settlement on structural, electrical, drainage, and pipeline components of the IPS facility. In addition, the study prioritized a list of recommended improvements and estimated costs for the recommended improvements. The study (enclosed) was completed in July, 2016. A number of repairs have been completed and additional repair are scheduled in the current fiscal year as specified below.” Recommendation R1.1 The 2015-2016 Grand Jury requests Stockton City Council direct (through the City Manager) the Director of MUD by October 1, 2016 follow-up on the draft plan recommendations to help predict future conditions, and the summary report of ground settling and recommended associated repairs and costs. Agency Response: “The July 2016 study identified a list of IPS improvements to driveways, doorways, masonry walls, site grading, electrical conduits, drainage, sewer system, 54-inch and 16-inch pipelines, and water well necessary to correct the damage caused by the settlement. The list of improvements were ranked based on criticality. The highest priority and the most critical repairs are corrections to all issues that will prevent the pump station facility from functioning properly and providing raw water to the Delta Water Supply Treatment Plant. The next priority of repairs were those relating to safety, followed by security issues, future functional and non-functional issues, and finally, issues relating to aesthetics. Some of the improvements are as follows:  Repairs to electrical conduits compromised because displacement (Criticality 1)  Repair to non-potable well (Criticality 1)  Repairs of driveways displaced (Criticality 2)  Repairs to leaning masonry wall (Criticality 2)  Repairs to uneven pavement (Criticality 2) “The cost of the listed improvements was estimated at $590,000. IPS repair costs are programmed in the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with $500,000 budgeted in the current fiscal year to address Criticality 1 repairs. Additional ongoing repairs will be budgeted in the five year CIP. “The improvements completed to-date at the IPS, include: installation of flexible transitions to electrical conduits to mitigate for stress on electrical systems caused by settlement; replacement of expansion and offset joints on the 54-inch pipeline to ensure continuous and reliable raw water delivery to the treatment plant; and repair of well utilized to supply water for pump station operations.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. The Levee Settlement Problems and Improvement Study dated Aug. 4, 2016 addressed all issues identified in recommendation 1.4. Finding F1.2 Regarding the H2S pilot study, MUD will prepare a pilot test report and an H2S reduction summary for the City Council in the summer of 2016. Agency Response: “MUD completed the H2S pilot study (enclosed) in July 2016.” 154 Recommendation R1.2 The 2015-2016 Grand Jury requests City Council direct (through the City Manager), the Director of MUD by October 1, 2016 provide the 2016-2017 Grand Jury a copy of the pilot test report and H2S reduction summary and the settlement design plan described in R1.1 in the 2014-2015 report scheduled to be completed by summer 2016 to be forwarded to the 2016-2017 Grand Jury. Agency Response: “MUD completed the H2S pilot study that documented the effective application rate of sodium hydroxide in Collection Systems 7 and 8 to control atmospheric H2S. In short, the pilot study helped to determine the appropriate chemical treatment to effectively control corrosive gases in t h e collections s y s t e m . The pilot study commenced in June 2015 and was completed in December 2015 and concluded the following for Collection System 7&8, hydrogen sulfide control:  A one-time 2,000 gallons dose of sodium hydroxide recommended by US Peroxide significantly increased the pH level of incoming sewage and impacted the treatment process  Chemical addition to Collection System 7 has been temporarily suspended and MUD staff is continuing to monitor hydrogen sulfide levels and chemical addition will be re-introduced if needed  Continue to apply sodium hydroxide to Collection System 8 but at a modified dosage and frequency. The new recommended dosage is 700 gallons of sodium hydroxide per day, three times per week “Response to the settlement design plan described in R1.2 is provided in response to R1.1 above.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. Finding F1.3 Of the original 29 safety program areas; 12 have been completed, three are in progress, six have yet to be started and eight are on hold pending additional funding or alternative training options. MUD will not complete the program until early 2017. Agency Response: “MUD continues to make progress towards completing the development and training associated with all 29 safety program areas. Most notably, MUD hired a Safety Manager and an Occupational Health/Safety Specialist earlier this year to take over program development and implementation from NES, Inc. Recommendations R1.3 The 2015-2016 Grand Jury requests City Council direct (through the City Manager) the Director of MUD by October 1, 2016 prepare a report describing the high priority repairs to be completed in 2016 be forwarded to the 2016-2017 Grand Jury. Agency Response: “Provided in response to R1. above.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. R1.4 The 2015-2016 Grand Jury requests City Council d i r e c t ( through the C i t y Manager) the Director of MUD by January 1, 2017 to assign and meet benchmarks for the Safety Programs being developed by NES, Inc. and report to the City Council annually on its progress. Agency Response: “As stated above in response to Finding F1.3, MUD hired a Safety Program Manager and an Occupational Health/Safety Specialist to assume management of MUD’s Safety Program from NES, Inc. As of July 28, 2016, of the original 29 programs, 15 have been completed. Three are completed pending review and signature, which include Industrial Hygiene, Chemical Hygiene and Fall Protection. Six are in progress including Confined Space (due August 30), Lock Out-Tag Out (due September 30), Injury, Illness and Prevention Plan (October 30), Respiratory Protection (due October 30), Excavation, Trenching, Shoring (due November 30) and Emergency Preparedness (due December 30). Five programs have not been started or have limited development. “For 2017, development of the safety p r o g r a m s will be completed by staff as reliance on the safety consultant is reduced a n d eventually discontinued.MUD staff scheduled the c ompl et ion of one p r o g r a m or program update every 90 days u n t i l the final five programs are completed and approved. Annual training will be facilitated for all current programs as well as any programs that h a v e r e c e i v e d updates through t h e Safety D i v i s i o n in 2017. We are currently conducting daily, weekly and monthly safety audits to determine the best use of resources and the inspections will be prioritized based upon our findings from current 2016 inspections and audits going forward. Updates to the S a f e t y P r o g r a m will be contai ne d in the M U D Monthly Operations and Maintenance Reports beginning in September, 2016. “There are no budget issues as alternative training options have been completed to include the hiring of an OSHA Compliance Specialist and a Safety Manager to replace the consulting contractors from NES.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (penal Code sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code sections 924.2 and 929). Follow-Up Report to the 2015-2016 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Case 1401 It’s Time to Come Together Consolidate the Eight Preface This report contains the methods that the 2016-2017 Grand Jury used to determine if the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) responded to the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Follow-Up Report, “It’s Time to Come Together-Consolidate the Eight.” Grand Jury recommendations, as well as LAFCo’s responses are presented verbatim in this report. The current Grand Jury follow-up results are presented after the agency’s response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the agency’s response may be found on the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org Glossary LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission MSR Municipal Service Review 158 Method of Follow-Up Investigation The current Grand Jury reviewed the 2015-2016 Grand Jury follow-up report to the 2014-2015 Report No. 1401 and LAFCo’s responses. Recommendation, Agency Response and Grand Jury Results 2014-2015 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.2 “No later than December 31, 2015, LAFCo and the fire districts are to begin providing quarterly updates of the consolidation progress to LAFCo Commissioners, rural fire districts boards of directors, and the public.” Waterloo-Morada Fire District Response: “Agree” French Camp-McKinley Rural Fire District Response: “The Fire District agrees to participate with other agencies and report them out accordingly.” Montezuma Fire Protection District Response: “The District will be an active participate (sic) to such reports.” Linden-Peters Fire District Response: “LPFD Board of Directors agree that a quarterly report should be presented. This report should be based on the progress and finding of the meetings held between LAFCo and the Fire Chiefs’.” Clements Rural Fire District Response: “Our district will be represented in future discussions and meetings.” Woodbridge Fire District Response: Did not respond. Liberty Fire District Response: “We hope that this issue can be combined with the new LAFCo MSR. It certainly would be more efficient to do one study instead of two. Liberty Fire District will be a part of the study on consolidation.” LAFCo response: “Partially agrees. LAFCo agrees to report on the consolidation progress.” The 2015-2016 Grand Jury recommends that LAFCo provide to the 2016-2017 Grand Jury a copy of the Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the Rural Fire Protection Districts in San Joaquin County that is to be completed in December 2016. Agency Response, April 12, 2017: “This agency was unaware that a response was necessary since the Municipal Service Review, when completed, will be a public document and would, as a matter of course, be transmitted to the Grand Jury. LAFCo has made progress but has not yet completed this document and anticipates completion later this calendar year. “We look forward to completing this document and transmitting our findings to the Grand Jury.” 159 2016-2017 Findings and Recommendations Findings F1.1 LAFCo failed to complete the MSR by 2016, resulting in a delay to the potential consolidation of these eight districts. F1.2 LAFCo agreed to coordinate a series of meetings with the fire districts to discuss consolidation. Failure to conduct such meetings has led to a delay in the potential consolidation of these eight districts. Recommendations R1.1 By September 30, 2017, LAFCo complete the MSR for the rural fire protection districts in San Joaquin County. R1.2 By November 30, 2017, LAFCo establish a schedule of meetings with the eight fire districts to discuss consolidation and provide quarterly progress reports to the grand jury. Conclusion LAFCo Municipal Service Review Guidelines requires that an MSR be completed no later than every five years. LAFCo’s last MSR was filed October 2011. It is imperative that LAFCo complete the Municipal Service Review by September 2017. Completion of the MSR will enable the rural fire districts to meaningfully discuss possible consolidation. LAFCo agreed the subject of consolidation is deserving of discussion with all of the fire districts. Elected officials and community members must be engaged in the process. Consolidation may result in more effective and efficient fire protection services. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (penal Code sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The Local Agency Formation Commission Board of Directors shall respond to each finding and recommendation issued by the 2016-2017 Grand Jury within 90 days from receipt. Mail a hard copy of the response to: Honorable José L. Alva Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 W. Weber Avenue, Suite 1306 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected] 161 Follow Up Report to the 2015-16 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Juvenile Justice Detention Facilities Preface This report contains the San Joaquin County Probation Department’s responses to the 2015-2016, San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) report regarding improvements needed at the Juvenile Detention Facility. Grand Jury findings and recommendations as well as the Probation Department’s responses are presented verbatim in this report. The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determinations follow the agency’s response to each recommendation. A complete copy of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org 162 Method of Follow-Up Investigation The 2016-2017 Grand Jury reviewed the agency’s responses, requested updated documentation and toured the facility for verification. Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses and Grand Jury Results Findings F1.1 Carpeting throughout the facility was extremely dirty and stained. It presents a health hazard not only for clients, but also for staff and visitors. Agency Response: “Agree.” F2.1 Audio, intercom and video cameras, especially in high risk and suicide prevention rooms and hallways are outdated. Agency Response: “Agree.” Recommendations R1 By December 31, 2016, remove, replace or clean carpeting throughout facility. Agency Response: “The recommendation is in the process of being implemented.” “The Probation Department is currently in the process of replacing the carpet throughout Juvenile Hall and Camp Peterson: Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, Unit 4 and classrooms, Unit 5 and classrooms, Unit 6, Camp Peterson, In-Custody Intake office, and Detention Administration. “The San Joaquin County Plant Engineering Division is overseeing the carpet replacement project. All materials and supplies are scheduled to be delivered during the last week of July, with installation beginning during the first week of August. “There are four areas that will not be re-carpeted at this time because they were deemed to be in viable condition and did not meet the rate (age and wear) to be replaced at this time. Those four areas are Visiting, Court Transportation, the hallway outside door 9-9 and Intake Booking. “The Probation Department is working with Purchasing and Support Services to have the carpet that is not being replaced professionally cleaned. The cleaning will be completed in the next 30 days.” The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined no further action is required. R2 By December 31, 2016, upgrade audio, intercom and video cameras throughout facility. Agency Response: “The recommendation requires further analysis.” “Implementing this recommendation will require fiscal resources from San Joaquin County (“County”) not currently budgeted. The County will initiate the process to determine an estimated cost to replace the audio, intercom, and video camera systems throughout Juvenile Hall as well as the video system at Camp Peterson. Once the cost is known, the County will explore options to determine a timeline for funding the project in its entirety or in phases. It is anticipated that a rough estimate will be received within 60 days with a tentative decision made within 90 days.” See section 2016-2017 Discussion, Findings and Recommendations 2016-2017 Discussion, Findings and Recommendations The 2016-2017 Grand Jury reviewed additional information from the San Joaquin County Probation Department concerning the upgrade to the audio, intercom and video cameras throughout the facility. The county is in the process of procuring the services and equipment necessary to replace the intercom system in Unit 5. The engineer is now in the midst of developing the strategy to address the remaining juvenile hall intercom and video surveillance systems. Finding F1.1 The funding to replace the intercom system in Unit 5 was included in the 2016-2017 fiscal year budget and work was started May 8, 2017. Quotes for services to repair and replace the remaining intercom, central control and video surveillance camera recording systems have been received. The San Joaquin County Probation Department is appearing before the Board of Supervisors on May 23, 2017, to request funding to complete the upgrade throughout the facility. If the requested funding is not sufficient to rectify the problems, the Probation Department will return to the Board of Supervisors to request additional appropriations. Recommendations R1.1 By Sept. 1, 2017, The Board of Supervisors approve the funding to upgrade the audio, intercom and video cameras throughout the Juvenile Detention Facility. R1.2 By June 30, 2018, the Probation Department complete all upgrades to the intercom, central control and the video surveillance camera systems, as funding allows. Conclusion The 2016-2017 Grand Jury determined that the San Joaquin County Probation Department responded in a timely manner to the findings and recommendations made by the 2015-2016 Grand Jury. The Grand Jury appreciates the Probation Department’s cooperation in addressing the issues raised in last year’s report. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (penal Code sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to all findings recommendations in this report. Mail a hard copy of the response to: Honorable José L. Alva Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 W. Weber Avenue, Suite 1306 Stockton, CA 95202 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected] 165 Section V Table of Tours and Presentations…………………………………167 s n o i t a t n e s e r P d n a s r u o T 166 2016-2017 Grand Jury Tours and Presentations Tours 9/21/2016 San Joaquin County Jail, Honor Farm and Morgue* 9/28/2016 Mary Graham Children’s Shelter 10/19/2016 Deuel Vocational Institution* 11/2/2016 San Joaquin County Juvenile Detention* 11/30/2016 California Health Care Facility* 12/14/2016 O.H. Close and N.A. Chaderjian* 4/19/2017 Port of Stockton *Mandated Tours Presentations 8/17/2016 San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department 8/24/2016 District Attorney’s Office - Public Integrity Unit 9/7/2016 Human Services Agency - Elder Abuses 9/14/2016 Lodi Electric 9/14/2016 Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin 10/5/2016 Stockton Police Department - Public Safety Issues 10/26/2016 Stockton Municipal Utilities Department 10/26/2016 County Behavioral Health Services 12/7/2016 Office of Emergency Services 167 Section VI About the Grand Jury………………………………………….……169 How the Grand Jury is organized…………………………………...169 Desirable attributes and benefits of a Grand Juror………………….170 Qualifications……………………………………………………….170 n Citizen complaints…………………………………………………..171 o Complaint Form…………………………………………………….172 s s i t e a c z o i n r P a g y r r O u J d d n n a a r G 168 About the Grand Jury The San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury’s duty is to address citizens’ concerns regarding the operation of local government entities. The Civil Grand Jury is comprised of 19 citizens who are impaneled annually for a one-year term. The Grand Jury has a separate and different function than that of a trial jury and does not hear cases in a courtroom. Instead, grand jurors examine and investigate local governmental activities within San Joaquin County. The responsibilities of the civil Grand Jury encompass the examination of all aspects of county government, including school and special assessment districts, to ensure that the county is being governed lawfully, efficiently and that public monies are being handled appropriately. The Grand Jury may conduct investigations of public agencies and the administration and affairs of any city within the county. The Grand Jury is authorized by law to:  Inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the county;  Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of city and county offices, departments and their functions;  Inquire into the allegations of willful or corrupt misconduct of public officials;  Investigate into the activities of all school and special assessment districts within the county;  Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. How the Grand Jury is Organized The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court empanels 19 Grand Jurors to serve for one year, fulfilling the duties as outlined under state law. The judge appoints a foreperson who presides over the grand jury. The grand jury elects other officers and organizes itself. The jurors meet in a weekly general session. Smaller investigative committees meet throughout the week. In addition, jurors meet with county and city officials, visit county detention facilities, and conduct independent reviews on matters of interest or concern. Each of the working committees report to the full Grand Jury. Conclusions are reached after study and thorough discussion of the issues and they may appear as part of the grand jury’s final report. Desirable Attributes of a Grand Juror Grand Jury service is a volunteer position with modest monthly compensation for meetings and mileage. Members receive a wealth of experience and provide a vital service to their community.  Good health  Open-mindedness  Knowledge of and interest in local government and community affairs  Skill in working productively with others in a group setting where respect and patience are essential  Skill and experience in fact-finding, investigative techniques and report writing Benefits of Being a Grand Juror The benefits of being a grand juror are many:  You will enjoy the satisfaction and pride of doing an important job.  There is the experience of being a member of a respected panel.  You will become part of a body of people with the unique authority to see local government workings not available to most county citizens.  As a grand juror, you have an opportunity to make a difference for your community. Qualifications To be considered for nomination, you must meet the following legal requirements:  Be a U.S. citizen;  Be at least 18 years old;  Be a resident of San Joaquin County for at least one year immediately prior to the beginning of your service;  Possess intelligence, sound judgment and good character;  Have sufficient knowledge of English language to communicate orally and in writing; You cannot be considered:  If you are serving as a trial juror in any court in California;  If you have served as a Grand Juror in any California county within the previous year;  If you have been convicted of malfeasance in office or any other high crime;  If you are serving as an elected public officer. Citizen Complaints The Grand Jury receives complaints regarding all levels of local government. They may include, but are not limited to, allegations of misconduct by public officials or employees and inefficiencies in local government. Any citizen may submit a complaint by completing a Complaint Form. Complaints are treated as confidential. This allows a complainant to come forward without intimidation. Generally, the Grand Jury provides to the complainant written acknowledgement of receipt of a complaint. However, with so many possible investigations, it is necessary for the Grand Jury to make hard decisions about what investigations to undertake during their term. The complaint form should be submitted only after all attempts to correct an issue have been explored. The Civil Grand Jury complaint form can be found on the next page and at: http://www.sjcourts.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/grandjury/CompForm.pdf Send your completed form to: San Joaquin County Superior Court Attn: Trisa Martinez, Judicial Secretary 180 E. Weber Avenue, Suite 1114 Stockton, CA 95202 Forms also can be obtained by visiting or writing to the address above. The Grand Jury does not accept complaints via e-mail. To Learn More For more information about the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury visit: http://sjcourts.org/general-info/civil-grand-jury 171 E. Weber Ave., Suite 1114 Stockton, CA 95202 Phone: (209) 468-3855 COMPLAINT FORM All communications to the Grand Jury are confidential. The Grand Jury is the avenue for county residents to bring attention to what they believe are injustices not resolved by public agencies, after other reasonable efforts have failed. What is your name, address and phone number? What agency and/or person are you complaining against? (Name of agency and all individuals, including their addresses and phone numbers) Please explain the nature of your complaint providing as many details as you can, including dates, times, and places where the events took place. (Attach extra sheets if necessary) Action taken. (Please list other persons and/or agencies you have contacted in an attempt to resolve this complaint and any actions you have taken yourself.) 172 Witnesses. (Please provide names and telephone numbers of anyone else who can substantiate your complaint.) The information in this form is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE: DATE: 173