Safety in County High Schools

Recommendations 8

• R1
  The County Sheriff/Coroner is required to respond to Findings and Recommendations 2 through 5. 107
• R2
  "Implement all-female, outside work crews for Honor Farm inmates." The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. There are insufficient female inmates on the Honor Farm to accommodate all-female work crews working on roads or at parks and beaches outside the confines of the Sheriff facilities. The Sheriff's Department is obligated, legally and morally, to ensure the safety of the female inmates with proper supervision. Findings 3. "Lighting in the law library is insufficient." The respondent agrees with the finding. Recommendations 3. "Improve lighting in the law library." The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. A request for upgrading of the lighting conditions in the law library has been submitted to General Services. An approximate completion date has not been received. See attached Requested Work Order. Findings 4. "There is no camera to monitor the safety cell for suicide-prone inmates." The respondent agrees with the finding. Recommendations 4. "Install cameras in the safety cells to monitor suicide-prone inmates." The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Sheriff's Department operates in compliance with the guidelines of the Board of Corrections for minimum standards of jail facilities as set forth in Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. In addition to placing suicidal inmates in a safety cell, the cell is free of any objects which could assist in a suicide. The inmates are then observed at a minimum of twice 113 The Honorable E. Jeffrey Burke Re: Grand Jury Recommendations August 15, 2000 each 30 minutes. This Department has been very successful in monitoring suicide-prone inmates. No inmates housed in a safety cell have ever committed suicide within our jail system. Installing cameras in the safety cells would require additional personnel to monitor the camera monitors Findings 5. "Exit plans are inadequate for inmates with mental problems." The respondent disagrees with the findings. As stated in the narrative of the report, there is an exit plan in place. The plan provides for a location for the released party to report and a five-day supply of medication is provided at no charge to the released party. As this Jail Program Aftercare Plan was implemented in consultation with Mental Health, it is not understood what inadequacy is being referenced.
• R3
  The Board of Supervisors should provide funding to the Children's Services Network to enhance its ability to provide leadership in coordinating services for Children and Youth. The Board's financial support of CSN should be accompanied by specific written expectations and conditions, including reporting on the effectiveness of interdepartmental programs. Response. The decline of out-of-home and out-of-county placements described above is an important indicator of the effectiveness of the CSN. The Children's Services Network mission is to foster community partnerships to meet the needs of children, youth and families in San Luis Obispo County. CSN's vision is safe and healthy children, youth and families learning and growing to their full potential in supportive communities. The Strategic Plan for CSN identified the following goals: Create a community based system of service delivery sites for children, youth, and families, Be recognized as an expert resource on children, youth and families in San Luis Obispo, 盔 氢 Develop local resources to reduce out-of-county/out-of-state placements, Increase and strengthen partnerships for the integration of child, youth and family services,
• R4
  Each school district should consider whether additional counselors should be hired. The District hired two additional counselors at Arroyo Grande High School since Fall 1999. The Board of Education and District staff are committed to ensuring student safety and recognize that preventive and interventive counseling services are key to this effort. Hon. E. Jeffrey Burke/Re: Grand Jury Report on Safety in County High Schools September 25, 2000 Arroyo Grande High School received a Healthy Start grant in the amount of $400,000 over a four-year period. The 2000-01 school year is the first year of the grant which has increased all areas of student support for at-risk students. Summary Comments: The District appreciates the Grand Jury's review of safety of our schools and suggestions for improved student and staff safety. As noted in the report's Conclusions, "At the four high schools visited, administrators, teachers, and students uniformly reported feeling safe on campus. The school districts are commended for providing high school students, teachers and staff a safe environment for learning." The District feels that providing a safe environment for learning is paramount. The Board of Education adopted its Goals for the 2000-2001 school year at its meeting held on September 5, 2000. Three of the four recommendations contained in the Grand Jury report were incorporated in the goals. A copy is included. Thank you again for your time and recommendations on behalf of our students and our staff. Sincerely, Many L. Defue Nancy L. DePue Superintendent Secretary to the Board ND:jw enclosure - 71
• R5
  "Coordinate with the Mental Health Department to develop appropriate exit plans for the release of mentally ill inmates." The recommendation has been implemented. As referenced in the report, an exit plan has been in place. The plan was established by jail and mental health staff. A written plan is entered into between the inmate (client) and mental health staff and a supply of medication is provided the released inmate as maintenance medication until the time of appointment. See attached plan. Sincerely, Patrick Hedges Sheriff-Coroner PH/sjk Enclosures y:\...\chf sc\gws\letters\ltburke.717 114
• R6
  Hispanic Community Relations Whether accurate or not, there is a perception by some members of the Hispanic community that police officers are confiscating "green cards." RECOMMENDATIONS
• R7
  The County Budget should fully fund the 70 level of pavement maintenance based on the Pavement Management System.
• R8
  3 16 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL September 27, 2000 Honorable E. Jeffrey Burke Judge of the Superior Court c/o Mary O'Donnell - Room 236 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Subject: Grand Jury – Abatement Assessments Dear Judge Burke: This letter serves as the response of the Atascadero City Council required under Penal Code section 933 pertaining to the City of Atascadero's Assessments for Weed and/or Refuse Abatement Costs. The City of Atascadero's abatement program currently operates under Government Code Sections 39561 - 39700. The Atascadero Municipal Code (AMC) requires the abatement program to operate in specific time frames. AMC, Title 6, Section 13.08 requires the City to mail notification to property owners of the proposed abatement, using the most current data available from the County's last assessment roll. This is to take place on the date the resolution is adopted. This resolution, declaring weeds and/or refuse a nuisance, is historically adopted during the second City Council meeting in April. The City waits until the last possible date to order the assessment listing from the County assuring that the most current property owner information is obtained. This generally occurs 30 days prior to the mailing of the notices. This allows the appropriate time for our technology department to format the diskette, enter the proposed abatement data, and prepare the notices to be mailed. The notices must be postmarked 14 days prior to Council's hearing of objections. In the past twenty (20) years, the City has annually inspected 9,000+ parcels, notifying approximately 4500 property owners of proposed abatement, and abating an average of 150 properties. The City receives very few complaints each year, with even fewer regarding the process of charges. Each complaint or incorrect charge is given immediate attention and quickly resolved. The City of Atascadero's Abatement Program is the most important tool our community has in regards to protecting life and property from fire. It is hoped that the City and County can work 6500 PALMA AVENUE • ATASCADERO, CALIFORN 93422 • (805) 461-5086 • FAX (805) 461-0606 September 27, 2000 Hon. E. Jeffrey Burke Re: Grand Jury - Abatement Assessments City of Atascadero jointly to ensure improper charges do not occur, and at the same time ensure that requirements are not imposed upon the City of Atascadero that would jeopardize this valuable life and property saving program. Findings 1. Government Code Section 38773.5 requires abatement costs to be transferred to the unsecured tax roll if the property is transferred to a new owner after the abatement but before the first installment of taxes becomes delinquent. This legal requirement has not been followed by the governmental agencies, which use the County for collection of such costs The respondent fully agrees with this finding. For the past 20 years, the City Council has not transferred costs to the unsecured tax roll in the event ownership of property transfers. 2. The primary responsibility for compliance with this statute lies with the agencies, which perform nuisance abatements and assess the costs to the property owners. The respondent partially agrees with this finding. The City Council believes that the primary responsibility lies with the property owner that received notification to abate the nuisance, as well as the Title Company and/or Real Estate agency assisting in the sale of the property. The Title Company and/or Real Estate agency should research thoroughly, assuring that there are no current or proposed liens against the property, as part of the escrow process. 3. Use of the provisions in Government Code Section 38873.1 (permitting agencies to recover costs directly from the property owner), in lieu of the proper use of Section 38773.5 (permitting agencies to recover costs by using the County property tax system), would be less burdensome for all agencies involved and virtually eliminate risk to new property owners of being charged improperly for weed abatement costs. The respondent disagrees wholly with this finding. To bill the property owners directly and not utilize the tax roll would make the program so labor intensive that it would no longer be feasible. 100 131 September 27, 2000 Hon. E. Jeffrey Burke Re: Grand Jury – Abatement Assessments City of Atascadero Recommendations 1. and 2. The agencies which use Government Code Section 38773.5 and San Luis Obispo County should work together to comply fully with this statue. Options for agencies recovering costs through the County property tax system include, but are not necessarily limited to: a. Reviewing County assessment roll records regarding property ownership transfers prior to sending a billing list to the Auditor / Controller for inclusion on the property tax roll. b. Immediately notifying the Tax Collector of any errors in assessment of abatement costs after property tax bills are sent to property owners, so that errors can be corrected. c. Immediately notifying new property owners that any assessed abatement charges may be the responsibility of the previous property owner, and do not constitute a lien on the property, depending on the date of the nuisance abatement and the date of property ownership transfer. d. Reviewing the assessment roll regularly to assure costs are being assessed to the property owner who owned the property when the abatement occurred. The respondent currently conducts or will implement the following options: a. and b. The City will begin to transfer abatement costs to the unsecured tax roll if the property is transferred to a new owner after the abatement but before the first installment of taxes becomes delinquent. The City will continue to immediately notify the Tax Collector of any errors in assessment of abatement costs. The respondent will not implement the following options: c. and d. The City will not be notifying new property owners that any assessed abatement charges may be the responsibility of the previous property owner, and do not constitute a lien. Because, by transferring abatement costs to the unsecured tax roll eliminates the incorrect billing of the new property owner. Also, there is no need for the City to review the assessment roll regularly to assure costs are being assessed to the property owner who owned the property when the abatement occurred, because that is handled upon transferring abatement charges to the unsecured tax roll. Additionally, the City will implement/continue the following: 1. Continue to make every effort possible to receive the most current data. 2. When improper charges occur, the City will work with the property owner to achieve a resolution. 3. Continue to educate residents when the weed and/or refuse abatement programs are in effect. 4. Implement an annual letter to all local real estate and title companies, advising of the abatement period. September 27, 2000 ٠. Hon. E. Jeffrey Burke Re: Grand Jury - Abatement Assessments City of Atascadero 3. As an alternative to 1 and 2 above, agencies using Government Code Section 38773.5 could follow the approach taken by agencies which do not use the County property tax billing process as a means for collecting such abatement costs, and use Government Code Section 38773.1 by billing directly and recording a lien. The charges will then appear in County records and will appear in a title search before the property is transferred, obviating any need for the procedures described in 1 & 2a. through 1 & 2d. above. The recommendation will not be implemented. As previously stated, if the City were to bill the property owners directly and not utilize the tax roll the program would become so labor intensive that it would no longer be feasible. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Atascadero City Council, Ray Johnson Mayor RJ:mmt 133 10-5-00 CAMBRIA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DIRECTORS: OFFICERS: HELEN MAY, President KENNETH C. TOPPING PETER CHALDECOTT, Vice President General Manager LOU BLANCK PAULETTE NIGHSWONGER KAT MC CONNELL District Secretary DONALD VILLENEUVE MARGARET MOORE-SOHAGI Legal Counsel 1316 Tamson Drive, Suite 201, PO BOX 65, CAMBRIA, CA 93428 Telephone (805) 927-6223, FAX (805) 927-5584 September 28, 2000 Honorable E. Jeffery Burke Judge of the Superior Court c/o Mary O'Donnell, Room 236 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, Ca 93408 Re: Response of Cambria Community Services District to Grand Jury Report regarding Protection of New Property Owners Against Inappropriate Assessments for Weed Abatement Costs. Dear Judge Burke: This letter responds to the letter and the above report sent to the Cambria Community Services District ("CCSD") by Grand Jury Foreman Michael A. Clark dated June 26, 2000. The CCSD's response is in accordance with Penal Code Section 933.05. The CCSD's responses to the Findings and Recommendations of the report are listed below. FINDINGS: (1) The CCSD disagrees partially with the finding because Government Code section 38773.5 applies to cities not districts. The CCSD enforces weed abatement charges according to Government Code Section 61623.5 and Health and Safety Code Sections 14875, et seq. Health and Safety Code Section 14912 is comparable to Government Code section 38773.5. The CCSD has no knowledge of whether these legal requirements have been followed by other governmental agencies. (2) The CCSD agrees with the finding. (3) The CCSD disagrees partially with the findings because it would much more burdensome for all of the agencies involved to use the procedures utilizing Government Code section 38773.1 or Health and Safety Code Section 14912 for the collection of weed abatement charges. The CCSD finds that it is much more efficient and cost effective to refund weed abatement charges assessed to the new property owner directly to the new owner than to implement the procedures of Health and Safety Code 14912. RECOMMENDATIONS (1 & 2) The CCSD agrees with the recommendation that agencies work with San Luis Obispo County to fully comply with the Health and Safety Code Section 14912. (a) The CCSD will review County assessment roll records and property transfer reports from private companies which are usually more current than the County assessment rolls regarding property ownership. This will be done prior to submitting any future weed abatement charges to the San Luis Obispo County Auditor Controllers Office. The CCSD will continue its practice of notifying all of the escrow and title insurance companies located in Cambria three (3) different times during the weed abatement process. 1) When the Weed Abatement Notices are mailed out, a list of all of the parcels that have to be abated is given to the escrow and title companies. 2) At the time the Board of Directors of the CCSD accept the list of parcels that will have weed abatement done by a contractor hired by the CCSD, a list of those parcels on the contract list are distributed to the escrow and title companies. 3) When the weed abatement charged are submitted to the San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controllers Office a third list is given to the escrow and title companies in Cambria. (b) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented for the 2001 weed abatement season. (c) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented for the 2001 weed abatement season. (d) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented for the 2001 weed abatement season. (3) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted, as the CCSD will implement recommendations (1) and (2) listed above. If you have any question concerning the above, please contact me at 927-6223 or in my absence, Bob Hamilton, Utilities Manager, at the same phone number. Sincerely. CAMBRIA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Kenneth C. Topping General Manager KCT/bh Cc: Margaret Sohagi, District Counsel 135 CAYUCOS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 201 CAYUCOS DRIVE P.O. BOX 707 CAYUCOS, CA 93430 (805) 995-3372 RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT 0007 SUBJECT: Protection of New Property Owners Against Inappropriate Assessments ЭC For Weed Abatement Costs \sim SEF INTRODUCTION Cayucos Fire Protection District is an entity organized under Health & Safety Code section 13800 et seq. Pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 13879, it has as one of its powers, the power to abate hazardous weeds and rubbish. Specifically, Health & Safety Code section 13879 provides that Fire Protection District may abate fire hazards following the procedures outlined in Health & Safety Code section 14875 et seq. CFPD PROCEDURES As indicated above, Health & Safety Code at part 5 (§14875 et seq.) deals with "Abatement of Hazardous Weeds and Rubbish." The general procedure followed by the Cayucos Fire Protection District is to have employees under the supervision of the Fire Chief identify those properties which pose a public nuisance because of hazardous weeds. Those properties are notified via U.S. mail. A resolution is adopted identifying those properties which have been posted as constituting a nuisance, but which have not been remediated. Health & Safety Code section 14883 requires a description of the subject property to be included with the resolution. Health & Safety Code section 14883 states as follows: The resolution shall describe the property upon which, or in front of which a nuisance exists by describing the property by reference to the tract, block, lot, code area, and parcel number, as used in the records of the County Assessor or in accordance with the map used in describing the property for taxation purposes. No other description is necessary. Prior to any hearing the properties are posted pursuant Health & Safety Code sections 14893, 14894 and 14895. Further, notice is published in a newspaper of general circulation not less than 10 days prior to the hearing. CAYUCOS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 201 CAYUCOS DRIVE P.O. BOX 707 CAYUCOS, CA 93430 (805) 995-3372 Health & Safety Code section 14912 allows for the collection of the costs of abatement as special assessments on the subject property. This section reads as follows: "The amount of costs for abating the nuisance in front of or upon the various parcels of the land mentioned in the report as confirmed and the amount of costs incurred by the responsible agency in enforcing the abatement upon parcels, including investigation, boundary determination, measurement, clerical and other costs, shail constitute assessments against the respective parcels of land, and are lien on the property for the amount of the respective assessments. Such lien attaches upon recordation in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the property is situated of a certified copy of the resolution of confirmation. The assessment may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as an ordinary municipal ad valorem taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for such taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of municipal ad valorem taxes shall be applicable to such assessment, except that if any real property to which a lien would attach has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon prior to the date on which the first installment of such taxes would become delinquent, then the lien which would otherwise be imposed by this section shall not attach to such real property and the costs of abatement and costs of enforcing abatement, as confirmed, relating to such property shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for collection." Cayucos Fire Protection District has been following the Health & Safety Code procedures for abatement of hazardous weeds and rubbish for 23 years. Weed abatement has been collected by special assessment and liens on the property for all of those years. To date, the issue regarding a subsequent bona fide purchaser has not been raised by any District resident since the inception of the collection process. CAYUCOS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 201 CAYUCOS DRIVE P.O. BOX 707 CAYUCOS, CA 93430 (805) 995-3372 RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION At the outset it should be noted that the Grand Jury Report refers to incorrect code sections for the weed abatement process. Specifically, the Grand Jury Report refers to Government Code section 38773.5. Consequently, the