Agriculture County, bringing positive change in the best interest of*

Expenditures of the IWT need to be more transparent

The Board of Supervisors needs to be involved in the IWT fund oversight Phone and commissary mark-ups work to the detriment of inmates and should be minimized The IWT Commission needs to be restructured with more community representation

If you didn't know, now you know.

Broadband should be viewed as a utility and managed as such. Utility status would be symbolic at present; transformation into a regulated public utility would require considerable legislative and administrative action. This Grand Jury investigation has found nearly universal acceptance that high-quality broadband access is necessary for all residents of Sonoma County—a reality made obvious by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet good access is lacking for many County residents. High costs exclude many potential users and deepen economic divides: this is a clear issue of equity, social justice, and economic disparity affecting low-income individuals. Lack of available access or low bandwidth service excludes or hinders other residents, primarily in rural areas. The County has two technological classes of citizens: the well-connected, and the others who are partially or totally excluded from full use of the internet. Sonoma County has not met the challenge of assuring that good broadband service is available to all of its residents. County government does not appear to have given broadband a high enough priority for action. County leadership has delayed in adopting a plan, and it has not provided the resources needed to get things done. No one doubts that extension of broadband access to all County residents will be difficult, but widespread and effective action to organize and initiate activity, secure funding, and complete real projects is not yet apparent. The Grand Jury recognizes that expansion of broadband access is a complex and expensive problem and that the individuals involved in this effort are dedicated and competent. What is needed is strong leadership, direction, and financial support from the Board of Supervisors and Office of Administration. Without leadership to harness and mobilize a unified effort many Sonoma County residents and businesses will be left behind.

Sonoma County's detention facilities have seen no deaths from COVID and have not transferred any cases to a hospital. These positive outcomes resulted from unprecedented coordination and partnership across the County to reduce the incarcerated population quickly after COVID began to spread, and from the Sheriff's Office timely implementation of measures designed to limit contagion in the jail. Now the Sheriff's Office and Wellpath need to collaborate to better adapt the jail's policies and procedures, both to prevent outbreaks and to relieve the isolation and limited activity that have resulted from the jail's mitigation and quarantine procedures. Keeping everyone safe was the first critical priority, but after more than a year, the Sheriff's Office and Wellpath must focus on improving living conditions in the jail, especially the isolation and lack of communication with the outside world. By continuing efforts to keep the incarcerated population at or below the levels we experienced during the pandemic, the cost savings will be more than sufficient to defray some of the jail's longstanding and troubling problems, including the lack of sufficient visiting options, the insufficient number of discharge planners, and unsustainable amounts of mandatory overtime for correctional officers. Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 2020-2021 The Jury recognizes that fast-moving developments in the fight against COVID may overtake some of its Recommendations. The Jury is hopeful, for example, that everyone who works or sleeps in the County jail is vaccinated by the time this report is published. With the potential for variants and the likely need for booster vaccinations, however, the Jury believes its Findings and Recommendations remain valid and relevant.

The Grand Jury initiated this investigation with a set of questions that sought to understand how well County agencies had adapted emergency communications to lessons learned during recent wildfire, flood, and pandemic issues. Additionally, the Grand Jury sought to understand how well the public understood these adaptations. It adds the question: did the public take to heart the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommendations for all emergency preparations such as home hardening? What was initially a rather specific question of whether Nixle and SoCoAlerts communications have been best used by agencies expanded to whether there has been enough outreach and education by the county on how to prepare for emergencies. We have used the date of October 8, the anniversary of the Tubbs and Nuns Fires, in our Recommendations under Evacuations, to underscore the threats and the need for urgency by Sonoma County for this fire season. County agencies were very responsive to our questions, and had made significant progress on communications and preparation for emergencies over the last three years. Revision and release of core documents—i.e., the County's Emergency Operations Plan—is expected be completed this year. It should thereby provide greater confidence in the County's ability to deal with future emergencies, and may produce better results. It will guide city plans and evacuation zone revisions. The County must continue its public education efforts about evacuation zones. This information is essential in preparing for future large-scale events. Next, the County should take steps to "harden" and update critical communications infrastructure, to assure that responders can communicate in emergencies. Finally, if the County takes steps to improve citizen preparation through education and through establishment of citizen volunteer groups. it will be in a stronger position to mitigate the harm from future emergencies that overwhelm responders. The Grand Jury was impressed by the improvements that have been put in place for emergency communications and the broader emergency response since the Tubbs and Nuns Fires. There are, as one would expect, items that can be further improved, and there are areas that are deemed to be inadequately addressed to date (perhaps in some cases because County and district agencies have been busy with repeated emergencies). The use of Nixle, SoCoAlerts, and IPAWS communication tools has been demonstrated in recent events to be largely effective to alert the public and to guide evacuations. However, the County and cities may still have a long way to go to ensure all notifications are getting out.

The Grand Jury's investigation into the City of Rohnert Park's transition from an at-large to district-based election system confirmed that the City Council met the requirements of the law. The City Council complied with the rules for public notification, public involvement, district demographics and district boundaries. Notably, the City Council held more public meetings than the minimum required, had Spanish translations of pertinent information on the City's website, had robust public comment and ultimately adopted a citizen-submitted district map. Additionally, the Grand Jury found no evidence of violation of the Brown Act. The Grand Jury found, however, that the circumstances of the threatened litigation drove the City Council's valid objective to complete the process within the condensed Safe Harbor timeline. This, then, coupled with related closed session discussions, led some to question whether the Council was receptive to public input and whether open meeting rules had been violated. The rapid transition actions are not judged by the Grand Jury to be improper, but they are noted to be unique to this transition, and should be avoided if and when the City revises district boundaries in the future. If the Census demonstrates that redistricting is appropriate, the Grand Jury recommends that the Council take early initiation of the process, with time to propose and debate district boundaries and election sequences. This will help to assure the public that the re- districting activity is fully within the public view and according to rule.

The 2020-2021 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury concluded that the responses to the 2019-2020 Grand Jury Recommendations comply with the Penal Code. In addition, the Grand Jury has included its observations on the responses following pages titled: 2019-2020 Grand Jury Response Summary Chart. Within the six issued reports, the Grand Jury made 52 Findings and issued 41 Recommendations requiring responses from 19 different County and city agencies, governing boards, and two invited responses. Of the Recommendations, 63% have been or will be implemented and 17% will require further analysis. The respondents also indicated they will not implement eight of the Recommendations within the Spring Specific Plan and the Homeless Youth reports, equaling 20%. Recommendation Actions Will Not Be In Future Further Implemented Report Total Progress Implementation Analysis Implemented 5 2 3 Spring Specific Plan 2 1 Sheriff-Coroner 1 2 2 14 5 Homeless Youth 5 Homeless Crisis 6 2 4 Emergency Water Shortages 8 3 3 2 4 2 Regional Water Resources 6 9 41 12 5 7 Total 8 Percent of all Recommendations 17% 22% 12% 20% 63% A copy of the full 2019-2020 Grand Jury report and responses received can be located within the County of Sonoma, Superior Court of California website. Individual Final Reports and Responses 2019-2020 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 2019-2020 Grand Jury Response Summary Chart SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN BOS = So Co Board of Supervisors SSP = Spring Specific Plan RES = Respondent PS = Permit Sonoma

for their efforts to make distance learning effective during the pandemic. The Sonoma County Economic Development Board and Access Sonoma Broadband for,

with very limited resources, their efforts to bring broadband to unserved and underserved residents of the County.

being responsive to inmates' concerns and prompting the Sheriff's Office to begin providing inmates with 10 minutes of phone time each day.