This Page Internationally Blank

Guadalupe does not generate enough General Fund revenue (sales tax, property tax, and bed tax) to pay for General Fund expenses, such as police and fire operations.

Guadalupe's current debt payment obligations will increase annually until 2024 (see Table 2) with insufficient corresponding increases in revenue.

The recent passage of Measures V, W, and X will not provide a long-term solution to Guadalupe's financial issues.

There is no revenue to restore salary or benefits to employees who have agreed to furloughs and salary cuts, or to add staff.

Guadalupe is losing $4,000 per month in the Solid Waste Fund, due to faulty accounting practices, resulting in a $240,100 fund deficit as of August 18, 2014.

Guadalupe's inappropriate transfers included money taken from the State Gas Tax Fund, which was used for purposes expressly forbidden in the Gas Tax regulations.

Guadalupe did not, until recently, follow rules that allow loans of funds from special funds to help finance General Fund activities which must be approved by the City Council, be documented, and include a repayment schedule.

Guadalupe has a large tax liability to the IRS, which started in 2006 as a relatively minor dollar figure, but over the past eight years, with penalties and interest, has grown to over $486,000.

Disincorporation will freeze the existing debt of the City of Guadalupe at the current level.

There is no revenue to build up a reserve fund for emergencies or pay for needed infrastructure repair.

There is no revenue to eliminate the need for the City of Guadalupe to borrow an additional $330,000 per year to meet General Fund obligations.

Guadalupe has, for over 12 years, charged up to 193 percent of overhead expenses through inappropriate interfund transfers from its special funds and enterprise funds to the General Fund.

Guadalupe's decades long hope and expectation that future housing and commercial development will improve its financial situation have not been realized.

The hot tub/spa and deck were constructed without the required permits.

The carport and attached trellis were constructed without the required permits.

Where there is a pool or body of water over 18 inches, gates opening through fence or wall enclosures shall be equipped with a self-closing and self-latching device. 2000 Violations – None noted 2002 Violations Building Violation: Gates leading to pool area must be self-closing and self-latching. 2011 Violations Building Violations Permits also cannot be located for the barbeque, sink and electrical applicances [sic] for the outdoor cooking area. (Note, this inspector indicated "none" for Zoning Ordinance or Building Code violations.) 2014 Violations: Building Violations

The 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury finds that Guadalupe simply does not generate enough General Fund revenue from the sources most cities rely on (property, sales and bed taxes) to provide basic services to its citizens. Guadalupe remains a city run by the same well-intentioned, but ultimately untrained and uninquisitive elected officials, who in past years have relied on unqualified and undertrained staff. For over 12 years the City has floated budget deficits by way of inappropriate interfund transfers from special and enterprise funds to the General Fund. The Jury recognizes the many financial changes made by the City of Guadalupe over the past year. However, budget deficits continue 11 California Government Code Section 57419 12 http://www.csda.net/special-districts/ last visited March 16, 2015 13 ibid 14 California Government Code Section 56000, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. 15 California Government Code Section 56375.3 (a) 16 California Government Code Section 56885.5.(a)(3) to this day, leading to a series of financial problems from which there is no recovery. The FY 2015-16 budget includes an initially modest $14,375 payment to cover the first year debt service for the $575,000 FY 2014-15 stop gap loan. However, these repayments increase annually over the ten- year loan period with a final payment in 2024 of $100,625. Other significant long-term debt includes repayment of two loans from the Redevelopment Agency for an August 2006 loan of $1 million to construct the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and a June 2002 loan for $167,629 to eliminate the deficit of the solid waste fund. Payments on these two loans will increase from $30,000 in 2014 to $170,000 in 2015 and continue at this level to 2020. The November 4, 2014 voter approval of Measures V, W, and X will help the City achieve a "structurally balanced" General Fund budget in FY 2015-16,17 but will not provide a long-term solution. Once fully implemented these Measures will annually provide approximately $300,000 in new revenue. This is less than half of what is needed each year to cover the City's General Fund revenue deficits going forward. These deficits have averaged approximately $630,000 per year over the last 12 years. These voter approved Measures offer no funding to recompense City employees who took pay cuts or accepted furloughs to help keep the City operating over the past several years, let alone provide for future pay raises. Also, these Measures will not provide funding for capital improvements, adequate reserves, or handling aging infrastructure emergencies that may occur, such as the past broken water and sewer lines. City Council members interviewed consistently mentioned the DJ Farms housing development as something that might save the City. Unfortunately, this project will not be completed until 2026, at the earliest, and projected property tax revenue will still be insufficient to cover the General Fund's day-to- day operations. After public disclosure of years of mismanagement of Guadalupe City funds, the Jury notes that many of those who were in positions of responsibility during those years have been repeatedly reelected or rehired. This is the fourth Grand Jury report since 2002 on Guadalupe's financial dysfunction, and this Jury believes it is time to say "enough." There is no bridge to solvency in the estimation of the Jury. The Jury concludes that the City Council of Guadalupe should take the necessary steps to disincorporate. Santa Barbara County Grand Jury reports are fact-based investigative observations that offer recommendations to improve governmental operations. This report is no exception, but it is the first time the Jury has recommended that a city disincorporate. The Jury understands an initial reaction would be for the Guadalupe City Council to reject this action feeling that Guadalupe would lose its identity. This would not be the case nor would the community of Guadalupe vanish. All one would have to do is look at other unincorporated communities throughout the State. The Jury challenges the Guadalupe City Council to realistically consider the disincorporation recommendation when responding to this report. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 Financial Assessment Memorandum, William C. Statler, August 28, 2014 GUADALUPE SHELL GAME MUST END Finding 1 Guadalupe does not generate enough General Fund revenue (sales tax, property tax, and bed tax) to pay for General Fund expenses, such as police and fire operations. Finding 2 Guadalupe's current debt payment obligations will increase annually until 2024 (see Table 2) with insufficient corresponding increases in revenue. Finding 3 The recent passage of Measures V, W, and X will not provide a long-term solution to Guadalupe's financial issues. Finding 4 There is no revenue to restore salary or benefits to employees who have agreed to furloughs and salary cuts, or to add staff. Finding 5 There is no revenue to build up a reserve fund for emergencies or pay for needed infrastructure repair. Finding 6 There is no revenue to eliminate the need for the City of Guadalupe to borrow an additional $330,000 per year to meet General Fund obligations. Finding 7 Guadalupe is losing $4,000 per month in the Solid Waste Fund, due to faulty accounting practices, resulting in a $240,100 fund deficit as of August 18, 2014. Finding 8 Guadalupe has, for over 12 years, charged up to 193 percent of overhead expenses through inappropriate interfund transfers from its special funds and enterprise funds to the General Fund. Finding 9 Guadalupe's inappropriate transfers included money taken from the State Gas Tax Fund, which was used for purposes expressly forbidden in the Gas Tax regulations. Finding 10 Guadalupe did not, until recently, follow rules that allow loans of funds from special funds to help finance General Fund activities which must be approved by the City Council, be documented, and include a repayment schedule. Finding 11 Guadalupe has a large tax liability to the IRS, which started in 2006 as a relatively minor dollar figure, but over the past eight years, with penalties and interest, has grown to over $486,000. Finding 12 Guadalupe's decades long hope and expectation that future housing and commercial development will improve its financial situation have not been realized. Finding 13 Disincorporation will freeze the existing debt of the City of Guadalupe at the current level.

The 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury believes the Sheriff-Coroner's Bureau facility should be replaced as soon as possible. As an alternative, an existing building could be acquired and remodeled to comply with CCR Title 8, Section 5144, 5193 and 5199 regulations. The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors has not funded the estimated $130,000 identified by Mechanical Engineering Consultants to merely improve the ventilation system at the Coroner's Bureau facility. The facility's existing mechanical systems were never designed to support current laboratory requirements. Major additional renovations are needed to the current facility to handle airborne infectious diseases. Health, safety and security are serious concerns. Both operational and facility modifications are needed to comply with Cal/OSHA Standards. The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors response dated February 11, 2014 to the 2012-13 Grand Jury report stated "Health and safety concerns identified through the facility condition assessment will be given high priority for funding." To date no funds have been allocated to upgrade the Coroner's Bureau facility. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The Sheriff-Coroner's Bureau facility does not comply with California Code Regulations; Title 8, Sections 5144, 5193 and 5199. Recommendation 1a That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors fund the construction of a new coroner's facility under the "health and safety prioritization" directive of the Board of Supervisors Facility Condition Assessment Reports to become compliant with infectious disease control regulations. Recommendation 1b That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors identify and fund an existing building that could be used to perform the functions of the Coroner's Bureau in a manner compliant with infectious disease control regulations. Finding 2 The Sheriff-Coroner's Bureau facility does not have the mechanical and structural systems including negative air pressure which are necessary for the control of infectious SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF-CORONER'S BUREAU diseases, removal of noxious odors and dilution and expulsion of contaminants from the entire facility. Recommendation 2 That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors make funds available to upgrade the structural and mechanical systems of the existing coroner's facility to become compliant with infectious disease control regulations to protect the health and safety of County employees and the public. Finding 3 The Sheriff-Coroner's Bureau safety polices and plans are insufficient to ensure compliance with the rules relating to infectious disease control pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 8, Sections 5144, 5193 and 5199. Recommendation 3 That the Sheriff-Coroner formulate and implement facility workplace hazard/infectious disease control policies that meet California Code of Regulations Title 8, Sections 5144, 5193 and 5199. Finding 4 The Coroner's Bureau staff is not properly trained relating to infectious diseases control both as it relates to AirID and blood-borne pathogens. Recommendation 4 That the Sheriff-Coroner ensure staff receive appropriate annual training on infection control, AirID and blood-borne pathogens. Finding 5 The Coroner's Bureau facility does not have the Powered Air Purifying Respirator (AirID) equipment necessary to safely conduct high risk autopsies. Recommendation 5 That the Sheriff-Coroner provide personnel with appropriate full-face powered air purifying respirators. Finding 6 The Coroner's Bureau does not test employees nor provide vaccines for tuberculosis or Hepatitis B. Recommendation 6 That the Sheriff-Coroner initiate testing protocol to ensure personnel are not exposed to infectious diseases and provide necessary vaccines. Finding 7 The Coroner's Bureau does not provide formaldehyde monitoring devices. SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF-CORONER'S BUREAU Recommendation 7 That the Sheriff-Coroner acquire and utilize the formaldehyde monitoring equipment necessary for testing the air for unacceptable levels of formaldehyde for the health and safety of the staff. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit. Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – 90 Days Finding 1, 2 Recommendations 1a, 1b, 2 Santa Barbara County Sheriff-Coroner - 60 Days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF-CORONER'S BUREAU_ THIS PAGE INTERNATIONALLY BLANK Detention Facilities Report DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT INTRODUCTION This report highlights the 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury's inquiries into the condition and management of all public detention facilities within the County of Santa Barbara, as mandated by California Penal Code section 919, subdivision (b) and as part of the Jury's role as the public's "watchdog" over the affairs of local government. The Jury's inquiries included inspections of all detention facilities operated by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office, the Santa Barbara County Probation Department, and municipal police departments. METHOD OF INQUIRY In the fall of 2014, members of the Jury visited each of the facilities listed in this report. Deputies, police officials, and staff on site at the time of the visits were interviewed and each facility was inspected. The Jury reviewed previous detention facility reports prior to inspections in order to confirm that issues raised by previous Juries were addressed.

The 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury visited all detention facilities within the County. The Jury met with helpful and courteous supervisory staff during each visit. The facilities were found to be functional. Overcrowding continues to be an ongoing issue at the Santa Barbara Main Jail. The Jury was impressed with the operation of juvenile facilities and the quality of programs available to juvenile offenders within the County. Juvenile crime prevention programs appear to be having a positive impact. The Jury learned that Sheriff's detention facility heads were not consulted during the annual budget preparation process. Santa Maria Branch Jail indicated a need for specific operational equipment. The Jury identified two City of Lompoc jail concerns. One concern is that the jail is left unattended when the jailor transports inmates to the adjacent court holding facility. The other concern is Lompoc jail key security. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The Sheriff's detention facility heads were not consulted during the budget preparation process. Recommendation 1 That the Sheriff's detention facility heads be consulted during the annual budget preparation process. Finding 2 The Santa Maria Sheriff's Branch Jail is in need of operational equipment. Recommendation 2 DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office evaluate the need for the requested operational equipment. Finding 3 Inmates of the City of Lompoc Jail are left unattended when the jailor escorts other inmates across the parking lot to the court holding facility. Recommendation 3 That a sheriff's custody officer from the court holding facility escort the inmates from the City of Lompoc Jail to the court holding facility. Finding 4 Some City of Lompoc jailors carry jail facility keys in an unsecured manner on their person. Recommendation 4 That the City of Lompoc jailors carry the jail facility keys in a secure manner. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Santa Barbara County Sheriff – 60 days Findings 1, 2, and 3 Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 City of Lompoc - 90 days Findings 3 and 4 Recommendations 3 and 4 Grand Jury Activity Reports SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT Protecting Our Human Infrastructure INTRODUCTION The 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) received a request to investigate the preparedness of Santa Barbara County to deal with an infectious disease emergency. Early in 2014, the people of Western Africa were already suffering the devastation of an epidemic of Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever (Ebola). Medical care workers such as Doctors Without Borders were alerting the world medical community that this viral disease, which has no known cure or preventative vaccine and is highly contagious, could possibly reach pandemic levels in this globalized world. In September 2014, when a virulent case of Ebola presented to a Texas community hospital emergency room with a disastrous outcome, a frightened American public began to question the preparedness of their national and local public health systems.

The value of the annual drills by the Santa Barbara Public Health Department (SBPHD) is reflected in the effectiveness of its staff, the adequacy of its equipment, and its solid relationship with public and private health care partners. This repeated planning for risk develops a level of redundancy in an organization that is critical to its resiliency in the face of any catastrophic challenge.1 The Jury encourages the public to maintain their personal awareness of all health alerts issued by the SBPHD through the local print and broadcast media, on the Department's website at http://www.countyofsb.org/phd , follow Twitter @SBCPublic Health or Facebook: Santa Barbara County Public Health Department. For consultation or self-reporting of a suspected infectious disease, call the County Health Officer on the 24/7 phone line at (805) 681-5280. The 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury is confident that the infectious disease preparedness plans established by the Santa Barbara Public Health Department are adequate and ready for implementation when needed. Under California Penal Code Section 933.05 this report does not require a response. 1 Rodin, Judith. The Resilience Dividend; Being strong in a world where things go wrong. New York: Public Affairs, 2014. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT THIS PAGE INTERNATIONALLY BLANK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRUANCY This is Where it Starts SUMMARY Santa Barbara County Grand Juries have a history of investigating school truancy and previous Grand Juries promoted intervention programs that are currently being used. These programs are showing continued success. While these programs cover all educational levels, the 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) reviewed truancy reduction programs in the elementary schools. The Jury is particularly interested in the use of the Community Leadership in Achieving Student Success (CLASS) program as it relates to elementary students. The Jury investigated the reasons for chronic truancy at this level.

An early truancy intervention program can educate youth and parents, helping them realize the importance of school attendance. The Jury learned the success of the CLASS program at the elementary level is improving middle and high school attendance. Since the implementation of the CLASS program, elementary records reflect a significant drop in truancy between Step 2 and Step 3. School districts have praised the District Attorney's CLASS staff in developing this successful truancy reduction program. The collaboration among participating agencies and community resources has been very successful in identifying students in danger of falling behind academically. The 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury applauds the District Attorney's Office and the Board of Supervisors for their continued funding and support of the CLASS program. The Jury also commends the school districts for their ongoing efforts to ensure the educational success of our youngest students. Under California Penal Code Section 933.05 this report does not require a response. 1 Attorney General's 2014 report on California's Elementary School Truancy and Absenteeism Crisis http://oag.ca.gov/truancy Last visited February 22, 2015 MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT TIGHTENS THE VALVE "If The Grass Is Greener On The Other Side Of The Fence, You Can Bet The Water Bill Is Higher" – Anonymous SUMMARY The 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) received an inquiry concerning Montecito Water District's implementation of Ordinances 92 and 93. These ordinances deal with allocating water during the water shortage emergency, including penalties and restrictions. The contention was made that the actual application of Montecito Water District's rates was different from what was presented during the approval process.

The 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) finds that the allegations were incorrect. The Jury believes the confusion arose because of the way water charges were presented on the customers' bills. This problem was alleviated by a modified, improved bill that the District now uses, which differentiates residential and agricultural charges. During a prolonged drought we are reminded of how precious a reliable water supply is to our way of life. The Jury commends community members who get involved with community actions that are proposed by our elected officials, such as the enactment of Ordinances 92 and 93 by the Montecito Water District. Under California Penal Code Section 933.05 this report does not require a response. LAS POSITAS TENNIS FACILITY SUMMARY The 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) received a complaint alleging an unlawful transfer of the Las Positas municipal tennis facility (Facility) from the City of Santa Barbara (the City) to the Elings Park Foundation (Foundation), in violation of City Charter Section 520, Disposition of Real Property or a Public Utility. The complaint also stated the public had lost access to the Facility as a result of a rate increase by the Foundation, and that the Foundation failed to perform deferred maintenance. The Jury found the transfer and lease of the Facility from the City to the Foundation properly documented, supported, and approved as per the City Charter. Daily prices for use of the courts are similar to or less than other city municipal tennis facilities. There are typically at least two courts open for drop-in public access. The maintenance issues are being addressed.

The 2014-15 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found the transfer and lease of the Facility from the City of Santa Barbara to the Elings Park Foundation properly documented, supported, and approved. While the daily prices for use of the courts have gone up, they are similar to or less than other city municipal tennis facilities. 1.2.3 There are typically two or more courts open for public access. The tennis courts are adequately maintained. The Elings Park Foundation is continuing fundraising in order to complete the rebuilding of the restrooms, shower/locker rooms, and the storage/office building. The Jury believes the City of Santa Barbara made a fiscally responsible decision by entering into a lease agreement with the Elings Park Foundation to operate, maintain and improve the Las Positas Tennis Facility. 1 City of Santa Barbara Parks & Recreation Schedule of Fees and Charges, 2014-15 2 Elings Foundation website last visited on 11/20/2014, www.elingspark.org/activities/tennis-2/ 3 2012 Annual Report, Las Positas Tennis Facility, 02/14/2013

Inappropriate Interfund Transfers

Inappropriate use of State Gas Tax Funds Failure to Meet the Minimum Spending Obligation for Street Repairs under Measures A and D Wastewater Fund Deficit Additional Debt/Loans Inadequate Training Each member of the City Council the Jury interviewed confirmed that, with the exception of a short introduction to Brown Act requirements, they received essentially no training when first assuming office. Nor did they ask for any training. Similarly, several past employees said that they had basically been thrown into the job and told to learn as they went along. Many of the issues identified by the Jury and listed above stem from this lack of knowledge and training. The Jury learned that, prior to 2012, there was no adequate financial reporting to the Council in open session, and the City accounting processes did not follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Member after member of the Council confirmed that they didn't really understand the financial reports they routinely received, that they relied on the staff's reassurance that everything was being handled properly. Year after year, the Council voted to accept budgets presented by staff without much questioning. Many council members appeared uncomfortable with the whole subject of financials and budgets. Inexperienced and Unqualified Staff A 2007-08 Grand Jury report found that a finance director for the City had been hired who "did not know how to balance the books." A former City Administrator told the current Jury his predecessor had no government experience and that a Human Relations employee was hired who had no Human Relations experience. In reaction to the revelation to the City Council of a long-standing deficit in the solid waste fund, a former Mayor was quoted as saying, "Sadly, you are in this position because former staff have not done their jobs." The former Mayor added, "Quite frankly, to have a negative balance for 13 years, starting in 2001, having an audit comment since 2005 and having no recommendations to the Councils to do anything about it, is really pretty inexcusable."5 It should be noted that audits were provided to the City Councils and there is no indication that members of these councils ever inquired into the noted deficits. Mishandled and Misfiled W2 Forms In 2006, 41 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) W2 forms were incompetently filed with errors by City staff. In an attempt to correct the initial errors, an additional 41 forms were filed with errors, compounding the problem. Although the City was apparently notified by the IRS of the tax errors in July, 2009, the Jury has no evidence that staff at that time informed the City Council. Over subsequent years escalating penalties were levied by the IRS. The IRS is now attempting to collect over $456,000 in taxes, interest and penalties. The City recently hired a consultant, at additional cost to the City, to resolve this matter with the IRS. Solid Waste Fund Inappropriate Accounting Practices The City contracts with a vendor for solid waste collection. The City bills and collects for this service without compensation and remits payments to the vendor, in accordance with the contract. The Solid Waste Fund has been running a deficit for a number of years because it has been paying more to the contractor than it has collected from the customers. The vendor charges the City for 180 more customers than the City bills, at a $4,000 per month loss. "This inappropriate practice is largely responsible for the $240,100 negative financial position in this fund: stated simply, the City has remitted more to the vendor than it has collected." A rate increase has been approved to cover the negative fund balance by June 30, 2020. The City intends to begin negotiations with the vendor to do its own billing and free the City of 5 Noozhawk.com 12/11/2014 "New City Council in Guadalupe Deals with Old Financial Woes" 6 Financial Assessment Memorandum, William C. Statler, August 18, 2014 GUADALUPE SHELL GAME MUST END the billing tasks and costs. Inappropriate Interfund Transfers The City's many years of inappropriate transfers of restricted funds to the General Fund were revealed in 2014 (see Appendix B). Cities maintain certain funds earmarked (restricted) for specific purposes; so- called "special funds" and/or "enterprise funds". The inappropriate transfers of restricted funds included money from the State Gas Tax and County Measure A and also money intended for lighting, solid waste, water, and waste water treatment funds. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles allow a city to allocate a "reasonable" portion of its general overhead to the special funds, in acknowledgment of the personnel time required to administer the funds. The amount allocated should be based on a documented cost allocation plan. In a larger city, the percentage of general personnel time and compensation (or "overhead") charged to special funds might be 10-15 percent (or less) of the total overhead. In Guadalupe, because it is a comparatively small city, with the City Administrator also supervising several departments, the reasonable allocation percentage should be approximately 65 percent, which was publicly acknowledged by current City officials. However, over the past 12 years, Guadalupe has allocated between 99 percent and 193 percent of overhead cost to the General Fund from the special funds (see Appendix B). For example, in fiscal year 2010-11, overhead expenses for Guadalupe totaled $793,371. But $1,533,923 was billed as "overhead allocation" to the various special funds administered by the City for an allocation percentage of 193 percent. Over the past 12 years, the Jury estimates that these inappropriate transfers totaled over $7.6 million (see Table 1). These funds should have been spent on specific projects for which the money was collected such as repairing streets and other infrastructure, and building a reserve to handle emergencies. The money was instead inappropriately diverted to the General Fund to pay for various City operations such as police, fire, City Council, administration, City Attorney, Parks and Recreation, building maintenance, permits, and Finance. The Guadalupe City Council has, for over 12 years, been using these General Fund overhead allocations as a way to cover ongoing budget deficits. These interfund transfers could have been appropriate if the City had put in place loan agreements with repayment schedules, and the City Council had approved them by resolution. Witness after witness confirmed that no such agreements exist and the City Council never approved such loans. The current City Administration recognizes the need to follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. On November 25, 2014 the Guadalupe City Council unanimously approved a $575,000 loan to the General Fund from the Water Enterprise Fund and the Lighting District to cover the projected General Fund deficit for fiscal years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. This action was taken by resolution and included a 10 year repayment schedule. Inappropriate use of State Gas Tax Funds Guadalupe has, on multiple occasions, used State Gas Tax funds for purposes other than those expressly allowed by Section 330, page 3, Table 1 of the "Guidelines Relating to Gas Tax Expenditures for Cities and Counties", published by the California State Controller's Office in 2004. Over the last 12 years, the City has transferred funds which exceeded the amount allowed from state gas tax funds to the General Fund (see Appendix B), which is expressly prohibited by Article XIX of the California Constitution. Also from the Gas Tax guidelines, allocations of overhead "...will only be allowed via an approved cost allocation plan or an equitable and auditable distribution of overhead to all departments." Until just recently, the City had neither a Council approved cost allocation plan, nor an equitable distribution of overhead to all departments. Loans from Gas Tax Funds can be made to a General Fund, but they must be repaid during the same fiscal year that the loan was made. Failure to Meet the Spending Obligations for Street Repairs Guadalupe did not meet the minimum Maintenance of Effort obligation on street repairs to continue to qualify for county Measure D (subsequently replaced by Measure A) funding, which resulted in a temporary suspension of Measure D funding during April to June, 2010. Wastewater Fund Deficit The City of Guadalupe has been described to the Jury as a City that operates on a day-to-day basis from one emergency to another. The City has no reserve funds for emergency repairs or capital improvements to the infrastructure. The fiscal effect of operating the City in this way was seen on October 29, 2013, with the failure of a main sewer line. The construction was completed on August 15, 2014 at a cost of $540,000. The entire expense was unbudgeted and the Wastewater Enterprise Fund was left with a negative cash balance of $610,000. Contributing to the mounting deficit in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund are loan repayments the City must make to the State. This money was borrowed from the Bond Refinance Fund of the former Redevelopment Agency (RDA) in August 2006 to fund wastewater improvements in the City. According to a City Staff Report in the agenda of December 9, 2014, staff reported being denied loans by three different local banks, "undoubtedly a result of the 2012 and 2013 audit findings which questioned whether the City was a 'going financial concern' plus the General Fund deficiencies discovered by staff this year." The negative cash balance would have grown to $710,000 by June 30, 2015, without a rate increase. The City has implemented a 30 percent wastewater rate increase. Even with this rate increase, it will take three and one half years to eliminate the negative cash balance. The wastewater rate increase should return the cash balance of the wastewater fund to the positive by December 31, 2020. At that time there will still be no reserve funds to pay for the estimated $4.7 million in existing wastewater infrastructure deficiencies, let alone the additional $6.2 million in long term capital improvements that were identified in the Wastewater Master Plan, presented to City Council on October 28, 2014. Long-Term Debt/Loans The Independent Auditor's Report Financial Statement for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, specifically in Note 6: Long Term Liabilities, indicates the City has several debt service payments due 7 Feb 17, 2011 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments staff report, http://meetings.sbcag.org/Meetings/SBCAG/2011/02%20Feb/Item%206A%20Guadalupe%20MOE.pdf GUADALUPE SHELL GAME MUST END on Certificates of Participation (COP) issued by the City as far back as 2000 with payments continuing, in one case, to 2042. In December 2000, a COP of $1.4 million was issued for water and sewer line replacement. Principal and interest payments average approximately $77,500 each year to 2038 and then a lesser amount until 2042. A second COP was issued in July 2005 for $1.2 million for water tank construction and upgrades. Principal and interest payments on this COP average approximately $71,500 each year to 2033. Other significant long-term debt includes repayment of two loans from the RDA, which was dissolved and replaced by the Successor Agency Trust Fund, for an August 2006 loan of $1 million to construct the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and a June 2002 loan for $167,629 to eliminate the deficit of the solid waste fund. Payments on these two loans will increase from $30,000 in 2014 to $170,000 in 2015 and continue at this level to 2018. Also, Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF) loans provided funds on four occasions totaling $438,988. These funds went to the Affordable Housing Fund to pay for the Lantern Hotel project. Funds are being repaid to the California Department of Finance. The Table 2 below summarizes the loan type and annual payments on long-term debt already encumbered by the City of Guadalupe. Table 2. City of Guadalupe Long-Term Debt Total Amount Annual Type of Loan / Reason for Loan Last Year Loan Payments Payment COP/2000 Water & Sewer Line $1.4 M ~ $77,500 2042 Replacement Water COP/2005 Tank Construction & $1.2 M ~ $71,500 2033 Upgrades Solid Waste From RDA 2002 & 2006 Fund Deficit & $1.2 M 2014 $30,000 WWTP ~ $170,000 2015 to 2020 construction Sewer Bonds 1971 & 1978 2019 ~ $16,500 SERAF 2010-11 Affordable $438,988 2014-2019 $28,902 $14,451 2038 Housing Lighting Year 1, $14,375 General Fund $575 K 2024 & Deficit escalating District to $100,625 in 2024 Water Fund 2014 Is There a Silver Lining for the City of Guadalupe? Outside Consultant Advice In June 2014, a consultant was hired to perform a "high level" assessment of the City's finances. The financial consultant provided a road map to put the City's finances on the straight and narrow. The City Council, upon recommendation of administrative staff, has moved to implement many changes. The consultant noted interfund transfers for 2013-14 and 2014-15 were sharply reduced by the City to conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. However, this created a General Fund budget deficit of $557,000 for these two years. He recommended the City Council approve a loan from the enterprise funds to the General Fund to be repaid over a 10-year period to cover this deficit. The Council has followed this advice and approved loans from the water and lighting districts with a repayment schedule. The Guadalupe City Council has formed an audit committee as recommended by the consultant. It has also implemented rate increases for solid waste and wastewater services. It intends to negotiate with the solid waste collection vendor to turn over billing and collections to the vendor. However, it should be kept in mind that there is no assurance the negotiations with the solid waste vendor will be successful. These changes are not being implemented to build up the City's financial reserves, rather they will only cover current budgetary deficits that accumulated over many years of running the City of Guadalupe with insufficient revenue. GUADALUPE SHELL GAME MUST END Ballot Measures V, W, and X In November 2014, the voters of the City passed three ballot measures (Measures V, W, and X) that, when fully implemented, are projected to add approximately $300,000 in annual revenue to the City's General Fund. This only covers about one-half of the $630,000 average annual deficit. The outside consultant estimated that funds from the three measures, along with the $575,000 interfund loan and minimal increases in property and sales taxes, will result in a "structurally balanced" budget in FY 2015-16, when all three measures will be in full effect. This means revenues will equal expenditures. The consultant made no predictions on the possibility of a "structurally balanced" budget beyond FY 2015-16. The increased revenue from the three tax measures allows the city to limp along with day-to-day operations. It is not enough to provide funding for essential changes to city operations such as building up a reserve fund for emergencies, repairing or maintaining aging infrastructure, needed capital improvements, restoring salary or benefits to employees who have agreed to furloughs and salary cuts, or adding staff. DJ Farms Development Project In 1993, a plan was proposed to build 980 homes on the southeast corner of the intersection of Highway 1 and 166 in Guadalupe. In 2006, a revised 800 unit housing development commonly referred to as DJ Farms (now renamed Pasadera) was proposed. The Jury was told by the project developer that ground breaking on the first 150 units would occur in January 2015. Ground was actually broken in March 2015. Plans are for 20 units to be ready for sale by September 2015. The developer anticipates these will be sold within six months. The remaining homes are expected to be brought to market at the rate of six homes per month. Full build out of the DJ Farms project has been estimated to take 10 to 15 years. The developer assumes an average selling price of $300,000. If the 150 homes are built as anticipated by the developer by July 2017, this would yield a property tax to the General Fund of $75,929. Refer to Table 3 below for details. The average yearly General Fund deficit is $630,000 of which the recently approved Measures (V, W, & X) will cover only $300,000. The DJ Farms property tax revenue will only partially offset General Fund deficit of $330,000 leaving a deficit of $254,071. Even assuming the above very favorable scenario, the General Fund deficits will continue until at least 2024. During that period the deficits will likely require additional interfund loans which will increase the General Fund yearly loan payments, adding to the deficit. The front 18 acres of the project are reserved for commercial development and there has been interest from supermarket chains and fast food companies. This could increase sales tax revenue. The developer speculates this will not happen until the first 150 to 200 homes are built. However, major national and regional retailers look for a certain customer base before moving into an area. This is estimated at a minimum population of 10,000 within the immediate geographic area. The additional population DJ Farms would bring, at full build out in 2026 or later, would barely satisfy this requirement. The City of Guadalupe's reliance on the vagaries of the residential and/or commercial real estate market to eliminate ongoing General Fund deficits is ill advised. Hope is not a strategy. The Jury must conclude that a Silver Lining is an illusion. Table 3. Guadalupe DJ Farms Property Tax Impacts to General Fund Gen Fund Prop Gen Fund Homes/ Homes Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tax Revenue Deficit*4,5,6 Year Total Total/yr* ($310,765) 2015 20 $ 19,235 Start 6 6 38 38 6 ($274,318) 2016 $ 55,682 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 72 110 6 $ ($254,071 2017 4 40 150 75,929 6 6 6 6 6 6 ($237,872) 2017 2 182 $ 92,128 6 6 6 6 32 6 128,574 ($201,426) 2018 6 72 254 $ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 165,020 ($164,980) 2019 $ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 72 326 6 6 $ 201,466 ($128,534) 2020 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 72 398 2021 6 6 6 6 6 72 $ 237,912 ($92,088 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 470 $ 2022 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 72 274,358 ($55,642) 542 $ 2023 6 6 6 6 72 310,804 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 614 ($19,196) $ 2024 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 72 686 347,251 $17,251 $ 2025 383,697 $53,697 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 72 758 $ 2026 2 44 802 405,969 $75,969 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 - Calculations assume a $300K home, 1% assessment, 16.9% allocation factor to General Fund, for a $506/home revenue *1 - Developer projects the first 20 homes will be built in six months after ground breaking; started in March 2015. *2 - After first 20 the remaining 150 homes in Phase 1 will be built at a rate of six per month depending on buyer participation. *3 - Remainder of 802 homes (652) to be built at six per month rate depending on buyer participation. *4 - Average yearly General Fund deficit the past 12 Years was approximately $630K with $300K covered by Measures W,X,&Y leaving a yearly deficit of $330K. *5 - New home property tax will not cover the $330K deficit until 2024 assuming the full built-out occurs at the 6 per month rate. *6 - Calculations don't account for salary furlough restoration and increases, fund reserve built-up, future emergency loan payments, home built-out delays, etc. Special District Option The inappropriate transfers from restricted enterprise and special funds discussed in this report were driven by the need to pay for General Fund operations. Official City audits have repeatedly questioned the City's viability "as a going concern." Voter approval of three November 2014 tax measures provided only a minimal amount of additional General Fund revenue, barely enough to balance the 2015-16 General Fund budget.8 Guadalupe has recently recognized that General Fund usage of restricted funds must be handled as loans, must be repaid,9 and become additional future General Fund expenses. Prior to approval of the three tax measures, serious discussions regarding the disincorporation of the City ensued10 pursuant to California Government Code Sections 57400-57425 which provide for the transfer of the city's assets and liabilities to the county as the successor agency, including the ability to assume control of, and administer, all systems of waterworks, street lighting, or any other public utility owned by the city at the time of its disincorporation. Regarding city indebtedness, California Government Code Section 57409 requires that the county "cause to be levied, and there shall be collected from the territory 8 Financial Assessment Memorandum, William C. Statler, August 18, 2014 9 Guadalupe City Council Action, November 25 2014, Resolution No. 2014-68 10 Santa Maria Times, August 25 2014 GUADALUPE SHELL GAME MUST END formerly included within the city, taxes sufficient to pay the indebtedness as it becomes due." Any taxes levied pursuant to Section 57409 are additional taxes upon the property included within the territory of the disincorporated city. Additionally, "No tax shall be levied upon any territory not included within the former limits of the disincorporated city for any debt or liability of the disincorporated city." Thus, the General Fund indebtedness will be frozen at the time of disincorporation. An alternative could be a reorganization of the City to a Community Services District or several special districts. Special districts are a form of local government created by a local community to meet a specific need. Inadequate tax bases and competing demands for existing taxes make it difficult for cities and counties to provide all the services desired by their citizens. When residents or landowners want new services or higher levels of existing services, they can form a district to pay for and administer them. 12 Multi-function districts, like community services districts, provide two or more services. 13 Just over a quarter of California's independent special districts are enterprise districts. Enterprise districts operate more like a business, charging customers for their services. Non-enterprise districts provide services that don't lend themselves to fees because they benefit the entire community, provide services such as parks and fire protection, and rely overwhelmingly on property taxes to fund their operating budgets. Reorganization can be accomplished by a City resolution and petition to the Santa Barbara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Established under California Government Code Section 5600014, LAFCO has the powers and duties to approve or disapprove proposals for changes of organization or reorganization of a city,15 and "the authority to condition approval or disapproval of a reorganization with or without election."16 California Government Code Section 56001, in part, notes "...that community service priorities be established by weighing the total community service needs against the total financial resources available for securing community services; and that those community service priorities are required to reflect local circumstances, conditions, and limited financial resources" and "...responsibility should be given to the agency or agencies that can best provide government services."

Format Changes to the ZIR Form None of the above topics addresses the crux of the problem: the CDD's reliance on incomplete files to investigate the permitting process, which creates serious discrepancies from one ZIR to the next. Staff told the Jury some discrepancies occurred because there was lack of follow-up of violations in the 1970s and 1980s, but today they are more vigorous about this. The CDD says that today's ZIRs show 5-10 percent discrepancies. A significant number of ZIR discrepancies (from the 1990s to 2005) occurred during the tenure of one City employee who subsequently left. Despite this fact, the City's clear position comes across as if a permit is not in the file, then it never existed; or the seller must prove it does. The Jury heard from a number of homeowners, real estate brokers, agents, consultants and other professionals who experienced the following egregious Zoning Information Report discrepancies:

A house built circa 1900 had a detached bedroom and bath on the property line. The City ordered it demolished. The homeowners were able to obtain aerial photos showing the original construction including the disputed rooms. · One homeowner received a clean ZIR when she bought the property, but when she wanted to sell it, the new ZIR cited a number of violations that occurred before she bought her house; one being a fence that for many years sat two inches over the property line. When asked why she had to move the fence, a CDD manager told the Jury it was a "health and safety issue." When asked for clarification, the manager told the Jury they did not know what the fence was made of, so how could they tell it was safe? This cost the homeowner $53,000 to resolve the problem. Another seller told the Jury the ZIR on his property indicated a deck had been built

without permits, even though the "deck" was pavers on bare ground. The City added an amendment that said it would not enforce the violation, but they also would not remove it from the ZIR. The seller paid an attorney $717 to get the matter cleared up. Another buyer purchased a house in 2014, and the ZIR was clear. When it recently went back on the market, the ZIR indicated a deck that had been there for 20 years was illegal, and the owner must obtain a permit to either remove it or rebuild the deck. It would not be permitted in its present state. Estimates for this came to $75,000. As a result, the final price to the buyer was reduced by $50,000. When dealing with the new buyer, the City changed its mind and allowed the deck to remain unaltered. The seller had no recourse as the property transfer had been completed. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA ZONING INFORMATION REPORTS A seller was informed by CDD staff, "...there is evidence that you have moved a door and window." The seller hired two contractors to confirm this had not happened. Staff did not offer any evidence that it had. The upshot was CDD essentially said "never mind." Still, the seller had to pay the contractors for revised plans and the City for revised permits.

The City wanted a seller to remove a carport that had been in existence for 50 years and had been reported as legal on three prior ZIRs. It cost him $20,000 to verify the carport had existed from the time the house was built. In a similar instance the homeowner was cited for a deck shown incorrectly on the plans. However, the changes the inspector observed were due to changes at the time of construction. It cost more than $4,000 to get the violation removed, but this was less than the cost for the City's demand for demolition. A son, trying to sell his deceased mother's home, received a ZIR stating the garage had

been moved from its original site because of the window and door placement, resulting in a violation. He was able to locate a 30-year-old photo of himself at the age of 6 taken in front of the garage, showing the original placement had not changed. When originally developed, this tract had the option of locating the garage in different configurations on a site. If the inspector had done proper research, this would have been known. If the PT II determines there is a violation, documents supporting the violation should be provided. Currently, it is up to the seller to provide documentation that proves otherwise. The Jury learned the position of CDD is that "We believe we can't support grandfathering in all improvements because we don't know for sure if they cause fire or life safety risks." 3 There is no formal appeal process, nor does CDD recommend one. Rarely are the ZIRs disputed since they often come so close to the end of the escrow period. The most serious problem with the dispute process is that it must go back to the original PT II who made the report, leaving objectivity in question. Homeowners are charged $465 for the ZIR and an additional $135/hour with a three-hour minimum, if disputed. A formal appeal process with an independent party has not been established which would guarantee homeowners due process. Clearly, there are no checks and balances with this current process. Common sense must prevail regarding violations that go back decades or owners ago. If CDD feels it imperative to correct the alleged violation, it should have a documented system for remedying the situation. In other words, the Jury concludes, "if you did not do the crime, you should not pay the fine." If the City has no compelling reason for correction of these violations, other than income generation, how does the community benefit? The CDD appears to be unfocused and caught up in unnecessary minutia. 3 Ibid CITY OF SANTA BARBARA ZONING INFORMATION REPORTS The City of Carpinteria is an interesting contrast. It also requires an Inspection on Sale Report which costs $245. Again, these began in the '80s because of illegal dwellings. Inspectors review the file prior to visiting the property and take relevant papers with them and then discuss with the seller what needs to be done to remedy a situation. Staff spends 30-45 minutes researching the office files. The inspector will spend approximately 30 minutes on the property, and at the end of an inspection, hand the homeowner a copy of the report. Total time for staff and inspector is 1.75 hours, and up to two hours for a complicated file. In contrast, the CDD of Santa Barbara states every attempt is made to complete the ZIR within 15 working days after an application is received. Additionally, the Jury was told Santa Barbara inspectors view the property first and then research the files. In the Jury's opinion, this is inefficient. A Carpinteria inspector estimated major violations are about one percent. The discrepancy process is simple. When on site, the inspector tells the seller what needs to be done to remedy any violation. Remedies can be discussed with the inspector until both sides are satisfied. Where there are clerical errors, the City will clean them up. The cost of a City of Santa Barbara ZIR is $465, which is the highest in the state, however, the total cost can easily exceed $1,000. If a homeowner disputes the findings and staff does additional research, the costs begin to escalate. If changes must be made, new permits must be acquired, even if the permit is for a demolition. This would be in addition to any requirement for new plans. While Staff says the department is "revenue neutral" these charges are in excess of other jurisdictions. Other municipalities charge much less for this type of report: the City of Los Angeles charges $70.20, Pasadena $150, Ventura $35, and Carpinteria $245. According to the CDD, ZIRs alone generate over $240,000 annually. ANALYSIS The State mandates the seller provide the buyer with a Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement (TDS-11). In addition to this Statement, many potential home buyers have a professional home inspection performed. These licensed professional inspectors are better qualified to inform the buyer and document any deficiencies, such as whether there is ball-and-tube wiring, adequate links to the sewer system and water and power hookups, whether the roof needs repair/replacing, or if a property is unhealthy, illegal or unsafe. These inspections are very detailed and much more comprehensive than the Zoning Information Report. However, the perception of many is that the intense diligence of the CDD is to ferret out past sins, which generates additional income for the City. More than one witness told the Jury, "...every time the inspector comes out there are more violations." Indeed the City expects the CDD to generate 100 percent of its budget for this program from the money it collects. PT II inspectors appear to have taken their responsibility to a whole new level. The regulations are applied inconsistently with new inspectors and even, on occasions, with the same inspector. As an example, the Jury obtained five ZIRs on a particular property spanning the period from 1997 CITY OF SANTA BARBARA ZONING INFORMATION REPORTS to 2014. This property remained unchanged during these years (no new construction, additions or demolition performed) and was reported as follows: ZIRs On One Property For Years 1997 to 2014 Violations** Year Bedrooms Full Bathrooms Half Bathrooms 1997 2 5 4 Zoning & Building 2000 5 4 1 None 4 2 2002 4 Building 3 3 2011 2* None 4 4 2* 2014 Building * In 2011 two legal sinks noted; in 2014 same inspector noted those two sinks illegal ** See Appendix C for violation details by year In another example, a property was listed on a ZIR as a triplex and the City collected taxes on it as a triplex. One ZIR indicated that since there were no permits on file prior to the 1950s, the City assumed the triplex was permitted. The next ZIR on the property noted that since there were no permits on file prior to the 1950s, permitting was not presumed and the triplex was therefore illegal. A violation puts the property under a cloud which is reflected in the price of the home, as seen by the above examples. These decisions can cause hardship, both financially and emotionally, to the City's residents. Many are often under stress to sell because of health or relocation circumstances. A violation is consequential and letters from the City threaten fines. Banks' strict standards often require all violations be addressed immediately, prior to the close of a sale transaction. The results can be that the buyer backs out of escrow, or demands concessions. The concessions will probably be more than the cost to remedy, because the actual cost is unknown. The seller may decide to take the property off the market. To correct the violation, the owner pays fees, pays for plans, etc. It can cost thousands of dollars before approval is confirmed. What disturbs the Jury most is the buyer of a property with a clean ZIR is not protected in the future. The next time the house is on the market, the current seller has no guarantee violations will not be cited, violations the homeowner did not commit, but will be required to abate. The wording of the violation(s) in ZIRs is often ambiguous. A Planning Commissioner was troubled by such vague terms as "might encroach," "something appears to be," "there is evidence," and "appears," considering the weight the ZIR now has. This is particularly troubling when the City feels no obligation to confirm this, but insists that the homeowner must provide proof that the property, in its existing state, is not in violation. Interestingly, a City Attorney approves this vague language as "intentionally qualified language." The CDD is proposing that in the case of inconsistencies/discrepancies between ZIRs, it would only refer for enforcement the creation of an illegal dwelling unit and the physical loss of parking. What creates a "habitable space" appears to be discretionary. The CDD stated that areas used for living, eating, or sleeping CITY OF SANTA BARBARA ZONING INFORMATION REPORTS are what makes a room "habitable." However, for 25 years a storage room in the home that had been converted to an office, and used to conduct business as such during that time, was deemed an unpermitted "habitable space." Currently, staff is proposing changing "habitable space" to "the creation of new floor area" or "new conditional space." At the City Council meeting, this was defined as "having heating and air conditioning." A member of the Council asked, "In your mind, is this precise?" In another proposal, CDD is suggesting a new Administrative Zoning Approval Process to reduce or waive zoning standards when there are unclear city records, discrepancies in the record (including in the ZIRs), or it is evident that the improvement has been there for a very long time, i.e. 50 years. When there are unclear records and discrepancies in the records, and it is evident an improvement was on the site prior to 1974, those improvements could be eligible for this The word "could" is problematic as it involves a judgment call which could be approval. reversed when the house again comes on the market. The Jury has concerns about this. Violations today are often called out when one inspector disagrees with the findings of the previous inspector. This proposal appears to set up uncertainty for future sellers and buyers. With the CDD's more vigorous follow-up policy, the Jury is concerned as to how violations, both major and minor, will be treated. Without reliability, ZIRs are a worthless document to both the buyer and the seller. Absurd as it sounds, portions of garages used for storage are deemed to have created a "physical loss of parking," and therefore a major violation. A ZIR will state, "...the workbench and cabinets encroach into the required parking area in the garage. By City Zoning Ordinance, two covered parking spaces are required and must be maintained at all times." This means a 20 by 20 foot covered unobstructed parking space. If half the garage is used for a workshop or for storage, it must be cleared out. This is where common sense comes into play. The Jury understands the need for off-street parking, but the requirement for a 20 by 20 foot cleared space that is covered is overly restrictive and impossible to achieve in some of the older homes in the City. The City should require adequate off-street parking, but in the Santa Barbara climate, requiring covered parking seems excessive and the regulations need to be revised.

Eliminating hazardous exposures where possible · Minimizing hazardous exposures that cannot be eliminated

Avoiding placing employees into an environment of potential workplace hazards

Requiring the use of Respiratory Protection Equipment The greatest deficiencies relate to the control of Airborne Infectious Disease (AirID) and protecting employees and visitors in the facility. The current structure is not adequate for performing high-risk autopsies on known or suspected AirID cases. These cases require negative air pressure rooms and the use of Powered Air Purifying Respirators (PAPR), which are not available to staff. Thus, these cases are currently referred to an out-of- county Coroner's Bureau. Proper controls and protocols are established by CCR Title 8, Sections 5144, 5193 and 5199 to ensure personnel working in any facility conducting autopsies are not exposed to infectious diseases when procedures are conducted on high risk cases of TB, other airborne infectious diseases, and blood-borne pathogens. Currently the Bureau does not have proper ventilation, nor does it routinely test its personnel for TB exposure or monitor for formaldehyde exposure. The Jury believes these deficiencies must be rectified immediately to protect staff and public visitors from being exposed to transmittable airborne pathogens. In order to achieve CCR Title 8; Sections 5144, 5193 and 5199 compliance, the facility requires extensive structural and mechanical upgrades. In 1997, an investigation conducted by Cal/OSHA revealed that seven Los Angeles County Coroner's employees had been infected with TB, due to improper ventilation when the bone saw was utilized on bodies infected with TB.6 Airborne Transmittable 5 Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office, Coroner's Unit and Coroner's Facilities, Illness and Illness Protection Program (IIPP), September 2, 2014, page 1 6 LA Times April 25, 1997 "TB Plagues Office of LA Coroner" SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF-CORONER'S BUREAU Pathogens (ATP) are transmitted via dust during bone saw procedures, such as cutting cranial cavities during autopsies. Training The Jury learned that the Bureau staff does not receive the specialized training necessary to formulate an appropriate infectious disease control policy in compliance with CCR, Title 8. Equipment The Bureau does not have the necessary equipment to complete its work safely. For example, it needs a Negative Air Pressure System and Powered Air Purifying Respirators to conduct autopsies on known or suspected AirID cases such as tuberculosis, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome, avian influenza virus, and other diseases. The staff is also at risk without this equipment when processing decedents who have been intravenous drug users or homeless, as identified in CCR, Title 8. Facilities In order to create the negative air flow and remedy the repugnant smells in the autopsy room, the Coroner's staff has created a makeshift solution by using a fan and keeping a door open in the autopsy room during procedures. This involves closing and locking the door between the administrative area and the autopsy room and keeping the outside front door to the autopsy area open. This makeshift practice does provide minimal ventilation, however several other issues arise including:

concern A code-compliant ventilation system is needed to ensure contaminated air exhausted from the autopsy room is not redistributed into other areas of the building. This is not possible with the present configuration. Testing Currently the Bureau does not have a testing protocol to ensure that personnel have not been exposed to infectious disease, including tuberculosis and hepatitis. It does not conduct air testing to detect the levels of formaldehyde in the area. Documentation There is a lack of facility-specific infectious disease control written policies and procedures. The Bureau has not created CCR Title 8 compliant written policies and SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF-CORONER'S BUREAU procedures that include facility and equipment decontamination; nor has it established proper work procedures.

La Posada Juvenile Hall, Santa Barbara Los Prietos Boys Camp Santa Barbara 3 California Board of State and Community Corrections Adult Detention Facility Inspection Cycle Information, October 1, 2013. DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT Susan J. Gionfriddo Juvenile Justice Center, Santa Maria This is the only 24-hour maximum security facility for youthful offenders in Santa Barbara County. Males and females, ranging from 12 to 18 years of age, are housed here. Youth placed in this facility come from the juvenile justice system. The facility has six units with a total capacity of 140. At the time of the Jury's visit, half of the units were not in use. The number of wards has steadily been decreasing. During the Jury's 2013 visit there were 94 minors in custody and at this year's visit there were 51; 41 males and 10 females. The average age of 16 years has remained the same. Units I, II and III are currently not in use. Unit IV is coed and houses females and vulnerable males. Units V and VI house only male youths who are completing the adjudication process. Unit VI serves as the primary housing unit for long term detainees. The Grand Jury visited Unit I, which is being redesigned with mental health staff's input to address the special needs of female offenders who have been victimized and are experiencing emotional trauma. This unit is smaller, older and is being redecorated with bright colors and furnished with couches. Eligible female offenders will have access to more personal items and closer contact with each other which, as explained to the jurors, is important in their rehabilitation. Programs The following programs are available: Education -- Youth are required to work on their education through the Santa Barbara County Education Office, which provides a complete high school program with classroom time Treatment Plan - Each youth has an individual treatment plan designed in conjunction with the family, probation officer, mental health counselor and teachers Baby Elmo Program - This is the parenting program created to foster a nurturing environment to promote bonding between incarcerated youth and their children. This program is part of an on-going research project at Georgetown University According to information provided and staff interviews at the time of this inspection, 83 percent of the youth have open mental health cases, while 22 percent are on psychotropic medication. La Posada Juvenile Hall, Santa Barbara La Posada is used as a temporary holding facility in Santa Barbara for South County wards held at the Santa Maria Juvenile Justice Center while they wait to attend court in Santa Barbara. The status of this facility is currently being discussed. The facility has 60 cells which are used if a large number (considered more than six) of juveniles are awaiting court. The facility has also been used when the Los Prietos Boys Camp has been evacuated due to a fire. The Main Jail will be using the La Posada kitchen facilities to prepare meals for the Main Jail while their kitchen is being remodeled. The La Posada kitchen has been cleaned and modified as it has not been used in many years. DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT Los Prietos Boys Camp Los Prietos Boys Camp is a program designed to help male youth return to the community as more responsible and productive citizens. All youth committed are required to complete a program with positive reinforcement and encouragement. The Santa Barbara County Education Office operates Los Robles High School on the campus of Los Prietos Boys Camp. In addition, vocational programs are offered for specialized training in landscape design, printing, computer technology and culinary arts. High school graduates are offered online college course work in addition to vocational training. Graduates can also apply for scholarships for higher education offered by local service organizations.

consequences of truancy, and information regarding county and community resources Step 3 is a meeting with an administrator focusing on addressing individual attendance needs, and where a contract with the school may be signed Step 4 is a meeting with representatives from the school and the District Attorney's Office, focusing on addressing individual attendance needs and where a Truancy Mediation Team contract may be signed Step 5 is a meeting with an independent panel of district, county and community participants,

with possible referral to Probation or the District Attorney Few elementary students reach Step 5, the final component of the CLASS program. This is because several school superintendents utilize local programs to provide students and their parents ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRUANCY with counselors and social workers to combat truancy causation. The CLASS program has created consistency and emphasized parental accountability and consequences. Recent state studies have reported the impact of a child's attendance on his or her academic success starts in kindergarten. Chronically absent kindergartners perform below their better attending peers on math and reading skills assessments. These effects are particularly pronounced as absences increase. In California, fourth graders who missed more than three days of class in the month prior to taking national assessments scored more than a full grade level below their peers with no absences during that period.1 Parental attitude and participation is very important at establishing regular school attendance. Children need to develop the habit of attending school in order to be successful. Some parents seem indifferent as to whether their child attends school regularly. When students are taken out of school by parents for unexcused absences, it disrupts learning. If a student falls behind because of truancy, the child may become discouraged and feel defeated. This can ultimately lead to an attitude of not wanting to attend school, resulting in chronic truancy.

These state-required annual simulations are designed to build organizational resiliency against public health catastrophic events. The focus of this year's effort was to test the SBPHD and their public/private partners' readiness to handle a symptomatic Ebola patient in our community while maintaining the safety of the health care workers and the general public. Immediately following the simulation, each component of the DOC reported to all the participants the most prominent concern identified by their area of the operation. Not surprisingly, most reported their need for better communication lines and upgrades to existing software and technology. Several weeks following the drill, the Jury was able to study the SBPHD's preliminary after-action report which identified more specific needs for strengthening their infectious disease preparedness plans. The following are some areas of concern for specific improvement and some remediation that has been completed or is in progress: Logistics: Computers lacked standard software and easy access to DOC files. Information Technology (IT) will update DOC computers and ensure access to the necessary data. Command: Hotlines for the "worried well" were established, but adequacy was questioned. The Public Information Officer identified additional call centers in other County departments and in the Public Information Officer room (Joint Information Center) at the County EOC. Video conferences with Santa Barbara, Goleta Valley, and Santa Ynez Valley Cottage hospitals worked well. There is a need to test video conference capability with all hospitals in the County. Ebola Response Team: Additionally, more Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) was required. A shipment received in December provided an adequate supply. They need more ERT members. SBPHD has successfully recruited adequate volunteers who will participate in PPE meetings and response role training. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT Field Operations: County Animal Services was not prepared for the initial response. This Department will be incorporated in the plan to provide decontamination services and quarantine of any exposed animals. Emergency Medical Services: AMR needs a Sheriff/city police or California Highway Patrol escort for their Ebola-equipped ambulance. SBPHD is working with these law enforcement agencies to establish a standard operation plan for scene security and escort to the appropriate hospital.