Not for O Addendum to The 1997-1998 Final Report*

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F8, F9

Conclusions 16

• CL1
  Again, as a final postscript, some might argue that "all's well that ends well." If so, the quality of current ambulance service in South County appears to justify the means. As part of this conclusion, the information before this Grand Jury could support the argument that the "true" provider of South County ambulance service is an entity known as Golden Empire who has admittedly provided financial, personnel, consulting and logistic support to FCAS.
• CL2
  There is no policy statement available to the public, from the Board of Supervisors, delineating specific guidelines for the exclusive assignment of county owned parking spaces, particularly in the Government Center area. Further, there is no clearly defined procedure to establish that the assigned spaces are given primarily for the public good, as distinguished from the personal convenience of the recipient. Applicable laws and standards extend to the Board of Supervisors the authority to eliminate or continue the "possessory interest" tax on the 74 exclusively assigned spaces.
• CL3
  County supplied data clearly indicates that a very small percentage of county personnel use the exclusively assigned space for any reason other than to warehouse their vehicle throughout the work day. This is consistent with other information that the assignment of these spaces has little to do with "criteria which might seem appropriate", from the standpoint of optimum use for the public good.
• CL4
  A review of the names and titles of the recipients of the exclusively assigned parking spaces convinces this Grand Jury that the assignments are mostly based upon power positions and historical precedent. This statement does not mean to imply a conclusion that all of the existing parking privileges should be eliminated on a wholesale basis. Indeed, it appears that a number could justify a continued assignment after the implementation of appropriate standards.
• CL5
  It does not appear that the limited number of covered, monitored parking spaces are being used for maximum benefit. For example, an argument can be made that secure parking should be provided to certain, high profile, government officials because of safety concerns. Other appropriate standards could well be proposed and adopted as policy.
• CL6
  There is an increasing scarcity of off street parking throughout the downtown area, including the Government Center. Thus there is an ever increasing need to better utilize existing space for the optimum benefit to the public. Patronage should now give way to better utilization. The general public has the need for Government Center parking space assigment to conduct public/private business.
• CL7
  The Grand Jury concludes that staff analysis of the standards contained in the initial five-year ambulance service agreement are valid standards. This Grand Jury report attempts to summarize whether or not these lofty ideals appear to be the motivation behind the awarding of the ambulance contract for the South County service area. (See Finding #3 for a quoted statement of these standards.)
• CL8
  A clear preponderance of the reviewed documents and statements support a conclusion that, leading up to September 1996, the service record of FCAS does not instill confidence in its ability to provide the service required under the adopted EMS Plan.
• CL9
  The county's decision to call for an RFP rather than a straight out award of the South County contract to FCAS addressed a number of reasonable and valid concerns. Included in these were concerns that county ambulance services not be concentrated too heavily in a single provider (SLAS), that the past service history of FCAS was a cause for concern, and the potential for attracting a more qualified and/or economical provider for South County.
• CL10
  The APOC recommendation suggesting award of the ambulance contract to Hall Ambulance Service was worthy of consideration by the Board of Supervisors. The service issues in the Hall Ambulance Service proposal had been adequately addressed by the proposed contract provisions worked out by APOC. (The contract provisions worked out were addressed in much the same fashion as the concerns inherent in the final FCAS contract.)
• CL11
  The RFP, as advertised, created a lot of unnecessary confusion and potential for litigation. Confusion was created as to the initial closure date for the RFP. Arguably the amendment extended the proposal closure date after it had expired. Also, the Amendment, on its face, extended only to those entities who had already submitted proposals prior to the closure date. Under either analysis, SLAS submitted the sole proposal under the published terms of the RFP and its amendment. The RFP process, by its very nature, is an invitation to submit a proposal. It does not create
• CL12
  any legal right in a proposer until acceptance by the county. Thus, the Board of Supervisors had the legal right to reject any and all proposals, and to ultimately award the ambulance service contract to the entity it deemed best suited to serve the public needs. (This last statement ignores the claim of FCAS, addressed in the next conclusion, that it was legally entitled to the contract.) However, this Grand Jury concludes there are substantial reasons to question the motives and actions of staff and the Board of Supervisors in the award of the contract. If one follows the actions of staff, these actions give the appearance of a pre- determination to award the ambulance service contract to FCAS, and the appearance that county action after the June and October 1996 recommendations of APOC was mostly sham. An argument can be made that the county was justified in awarding the ambulance service
• CL13
  The intent and purpose of the current Transient Occupancy Tax ordinance should be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. First, the Board might want to consider whether or not short term vacation rentals should be allowed in areas zoned to single family residences. If allowed, the Board might consider a full re-working of the existing ordinance to clearly define the intent and application thereof. Workable procedures should be established to insure and verify compliance therewith. If tax revenue is a primary or a significant motivating force, staff should be directed to initially prepare a cost/benefit analysis of enforcement costs/revemue. Response: The Planning Department agrees that the Board of Supervisors should determine whether to authorize the processing of ordinance amendments pertaining to vacation rentals. We will also work with the Office of David Edge/ Grand Jury Report Page 5 the Tax Collector to determine the most efficient method for auditing tax revenues from vacation rentals as well as investigate the costs/benefits of additional enforcement. As stated by the Grand Jury, it is ultimately the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors to hold public hearings and determine if vacation
• CL14
  All information, from all sources, received by the Grand Jury demonstrates there is a clear demand for short term vacation rentals within the county, primarily the coastal areas. Further, this demand translates into substantial economic benefit to the local service businesses and to individual owners who are not full-time occupants of their homes. The contrary position is advanced by the legitimate concerns of the full time residents whose peace and privacy is apt to be unduly compromised by over dense, frequent short term rentals. Thus, a re-crafting of the current Transient Occupancy Tax ordinance should strive to balance, as much as possible, these conflicting, valid interests. Response: The Planning Department agrees with the Grand Jury that an attempt should be made to balance valid, conflicting interests and we will propose working with the Tax Collector, community advisory councils, the vacation rental industry and local residents on this matter. David Edge/ Grand Jury Report Page 6 and Home Stays (by their nature mostly located within single family residential areas) serves a human need, not served by hotel/motel facilities. Some full-time coastal residents are upset that commercial type activity is occurring near their idyllic residence; others assert that a denial of the free use (rental) of their property is a denial of a basic property right. The courts have determined that the county can, by a proper ordinance, either totally ban residential vacation rentals or allow and regulate such rentals. Thus, in the end, the existence and/or character of residential vacation rentals is a political/sociological issue which should be decided for the optimum benefit of most people, while extending reasonable protection to the minority. This Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors seek substantial public comment on the issue when the ordinance is brought up for revision or elimination. Response: The Planning Department concurs that both sides of this controversy have raised valid issues which will require substantial public comment and public hearings. It is further recommended that during these hearings, alternative ordinance revisions should be considered in order to improve the current situation. FRANK L. FREITAS, C.P.A. DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR TREASURER TAX COLLECTOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR (1 ı S В Ν 0 Ν S SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406-1149 TELEPHONE (805) 781-5842 ROOM 200 COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER P.O. BOX 1149 FAX (805) 781-1079 DAVID EDGE, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO: FRANK L. FREITAS FROM: TREASURER, TAX COLLECTOR, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR JULY 22, 1998 DATE: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT ON VACATION RENTALS SUBJECT: (TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX) This is in response to the Grand Jury's report on vacation rentals. We concur with the Grand Jury's recommendation to proceed with a resolution to the identified problems. It should be noted that the report makes reference to Transient Occupancy Tax as being calculated on 6% of gross revenue. Transient Occupancy Tax is calculated at a rate of 9% of gross revenue. The Tax Collector's Department will be happy to participate in the process of clarifying and revising Title 3 and Title 22, with regard to transient lodging and the collection of Transient Occupancy Tax. Please let me know how we can assist with the revision process. If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 5843. Bob Grayson, Administrative Analyst C: F:\WPDOCS\WPTAX\GRANDJUR.TOT
• CL15
  The Department of General Services does not respond to the RECOMMENDATIONS section of the Grand Jury report. It would be more appropriate to have a response from other County departments. The current system of allocating parking spaces and decentralizing the assignment process has worked well considering the very limited availability of parking in the downtown San Luis Obispo area. The County has made gains in the number of parking spaces and was most generous in it's donation of $1,250,000 to the City of San Luis Obispo toward the Palm Street parking facility.
• CL16
  The future holds more opportunity for the County for additional parking spaces and mass transit. f:\ib\dpl\granjur.wpd

Commendations 1

• CM1
  Approve an extension of an existing interim agreement with Five Cities Ambulance, and direct staff to conduct a competitive process to select an ambulance provider for the southern ambulance service area. pard chose option #2, and staff proceeded with a Request for Proposal (RFP) process aimed cting a provider with which to enter into a five year agreement. That process resulted in the ace Performance Operating Committee (APOC), that body which has the responsibility for your Board on ambulance matters, determining that a provider other than the current one be d the contract. This recommendation resulted in legal challenges by Five Cities Ambulance. te need to deal with the litigation issues, staff returned to your Board on July 15, 1997 to nd that the existing interim agreement with Five Cities Ambulance be extended for an . - ................................... During discussion on this issue, various questions were raised about how the RFP process was conducted. This resulted in direction being given by your Board that a report be brought back in thirty (30) days which addressed these questions, and also included a detailed chronology of the RFP process. We noted the various questions during the course of the meeting of the 15th and upon our review of the meeting tape. Those questions, along with our response, are shown on Attachment A. The chronology of the RFP process is shown on Attachment B. The information contained on these attachments, I believe, clearly points out that all parties in the RFP process were kept fully informed throughout. Further, staff and the Proposal Evaluation Committee, a subcommittee of the APOC, were diligent and objective in handling the responses and in the subsequent recommendation as to whom the contract should be awarded. Currently we are in a five month extension period of the interim agreement with Five Cities Ambulance pending the resolution of legal issues which have been raised concerning the RFP process. At the end of this period we will return to your Board with a report on how those issues were decided, and recommendations as to how Other Agency Involvement: This report was prepared in coordination with the Health Agency and County Counsel. Financial Implications: This is strictly an informational report, requiring no action by the Board. As such it has no impact on incerely. "hili- OBERT E. HENDRIX. ounty Administrator achments Five Cities Ambulance San Luis Ambulance Hall Ambulance Service American Medical Response Emergency Medical Services Agency ambrfp2 pleast well Oceano Community Services District 1655 Front Street, P. O. Box 599, Oceano, CA 93445 (805) 481-6730 FAX (805) 481-68 August 20, 1998 The Honorable Barry Hammer Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County Government Center, Room 385 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 SUBJECT: COMMENTS OF THE OCEANO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT DATED JUNE 1, 1998 Honorable Judge Hammer: Pursuant to Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05(a)(b), please accept this letter as the Oceano Community Services District's response to the findings and recommendations contained in the Grand Jury Report dated June 1, 1998. The Oceano Community Services District Board of Directors did not conduct an independent investigation or interviews regarding the contents of the Grand Jury Report.

Comments 3

• CO1
  940-001-345 Carol, Allen Courts 940-001-346 Conen, Robert Personnel 940-001-347 O'Donnell, Mary Courts 940-001-348 Wade, John ISD 940-001-349 Morris, Donna Tax Collector 940-001-350 Reiner, Larry Courts 940-001-351 Duffy, Michael Courts 940-001-352 Lindholm, James Co. Counsel 940-001-353 Burke, E. Jeffrey Courts 940-001-354 Mullaney, Teresa E. Courts 940-001-355 Hammer, Barry Courts 940-001-356 LaBarbera, Barry District Attorney 940-001-357 Money, Christopher Courts 940-001-358 Umhofer, Donald Courts 940-001-359 (vacant) Courts Visiting judges 940-001-360 Chidlaw, Edward Courts 940-001-361 Frank, Dick Assessor 2 parking spaces (Van Matre, Donna) Assessor 940-001-362 Estrada, William Auditor 940-001-363 Law, Brett Tax Collector 940-001-354 Nanson, Tim Engineering 940-001-365 Santos, Arrona Personnel 940-001-366 Granger, Rich Personnel 940-001-367 Parsons, Rosalyn Courts 940-001-368 Ream, James Courts EXHIBIT A Assessment Number Name Department
• CO2
  940-001-369 Crawford, Jac Co. Counsel 940-001-370 (vacant) Courts James Gardner retired 05/97 940-001-371 Rosenberger, George General Services 940-001-372 Sibbach, Gere Auditor 940-001-373 Leib, Duane General Services 940-001-375 Freitas, Frank Tax Collector 940-001-377 Ovitt, Harry Supervisor 940-001-378 Laurent, Laurence Supervisor 940-001-379 Brackett, Ruth Supervisor 940-001-380 Ryan, Michael Supervisor 940-001-381 Pinard, Peg Supervisor 940-001-382 Howe, Andrew General Services 940-001-383 Mitchell, Tom General Services 940-001-384 Couzzi, Cindy General Services 940-001-385 (vacant) General Services Tim Gallagher left service 03/97 940-001-387 King, Noel R. Engineering 940-001-388 Hoffman, Norma Planning 940-001-389 Moss, Robert A. ISD 940-001-390 Lieser, Patrick ISD He assigns to his 940-001-504 Lieser, Patrick ISD staff on rotation 940-001-391 Williams, Lee CAO 940-001-392 Tingle, Bryce D. Planning 940-001-393 Shea, Gerald T. District Attorney 940-001-394 Grant, James CAO 940-001-430 Williams, Randy ISD - He assigns to his 940-001-503 Williams, Randy ISD staff on rotation Assessment Number * Name Department
• CO3
  940-001-505 Moss, Bob ISD 940-001-509 Wallo, John Engineering 940-001-511 Saude, Stan Engineering 940-001-512 Edwards, Fran Tax Collector 940-001-513 Douglas, Roberta M. Assessor 940-001-514 Stillman, Marsha Auditor 940-001-515 Mahoney, Betty Auditor 940-001-516 Freedman, William Auditor 940-001-517 Haber, Amparo Auditor 940-001-518 Booth, Norman Auditor 940-001-519 Jensen, Warren Co. Counsel 940-001-520 York, Mary CAO 940-001-521 Hood, Paul CAO 940-001-522 Hall, Wayne CAO 940-001-523 Grayson, Robert CAO 940-001-524 Wilcox, Gail CAO 940-001-527 McCay, Barney Planning 940-001-528 Philbin, Denis General Services 940-001-529 Matus, Michael Auditor 940-001-530 Jenny, Pete General Services 940-001-531 Jenkins, Jon M. Co. Counsel 940-001-532 Rodewald, Julie Clerk/Recorder 940-001-615 Findley, Sidney Courts COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO department of general services COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS ÔBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805) 781-5200 DUANE P. LEIB, DIRECTOR TO: LEE WILLIAMS, DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: R. GEORGE ROSENBERGER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL SERVICES DATE: APRIL 9, 1997 SUBJECT: GOVERNMENT CENTER AREA PARKING Lee, you have asked for information regarding parking and parking assignments in the area of the Government Center. Attached find drawings of the six (6) County owned locations historically considered within the sphere of the Government Center Complex. The six facilities include: 1050 Monterey Street-Government Center, 1039 Monterey Street-Parking Garage, 1087 Santa Rosa Street (former County Bank Building), 1144 Monterey Street, (former Kimball site), 1070 Palm Street (house) and 1051 Mill Street (house). The parking in these areas is assigned as follows: Administrative Office-8 spaces, Assessor-3 spaces, Auditor/Controller-7 spaces, Board of Supervisors-5 spaces, Clerk/Recorder-2 spaces, County Counsel-6 spaces, District Attorney-14 spaces, Engineering-6 spaces, General Services-10 spaces, Information Services/Administrative Office-10 spaces, Jury Commissioner-1 space, Municipal Court-7 spaces, Personnel-3 spaces, Planning-7 spaces, Sheriff/Civil-5 spaces, Superior Court-8 spaces, Treasurer/Tax Collector-4 spaces, Handicapped parking-6 spaces, County Vehicle-69 spaces, Maintenance Vehicle-5 spaces, Outside Department Vehicle-7 spaces, Prisoner Transport-7 spaces and Visitors-7 spaces. In addition to the above facilities, there are three (3) County leased facilities with parking in the proximity of the Government Center. Those facilities are: 1120 Mill Street, 1035 Walnut Street and 778 Osos Street. The parking in these three areas is assigned as follows: Administrative Office/Emergency Services/Risk Management-10 spaces, County Counsel-7 spaces, Grand Jury-5 spaces, Handicapped-1 space and Superior Court-6 spaces. Parking spaces in the sphere of the Government Center Complex are assigned to departments, who in turn assign them to their respective employees. This system of assignment allows the County to control it's parking resources with limited County oversight. Major portions of the available parking are for the large number of County owned vehicles based at the Government Center. Space is also necessary for the motor pool vehicles available by reservation, handicapped parking, prisoner transport parking, maintenance vehicles, a limited number of outside department vehicles and visitor parking spaces. EXHIBIT B Lee Williams April 9, 1997 Page Two The spaces allotted to General Services are assigned to the following positions: Director, Deputy Director, Administrator, Property Manager, Central Services Manager, Park Facilities Manager, Park Superintendent-Maintenance, Park Superintendent-Operations, Accountant III and Supervising Administration Clerk II. You will need to contact the other County departments for their specific department assignments. Don't forget, the Assessor's position regarding possessory interest on parking spaces in this area has greatly complicated the issue. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to contact me.