Tata Contractor Honorable Judge Steven Sanders San Benito County Superior Court Hollister CA 95023 Dear Judge Sanders,

a. cleanliness. Should be sanitized. Boys locker rooms--walls/toilets need to be cleaned and sanitized. b. Floors should be swept/mopped on a daily basis (sanitized) c. Old sinks/water fountains should be replaced (very outdated/dirty). d. Ventilation covers need to be replaced. e. The following classrooms need immediate attention.

Classrooms #313, 314, 315: (at present this classrooms are used for sports medicine instruction) Electrical plugs not functioning/broken (fire hazard) a. Light fixture broken/hanging should be replaced (safety/fire b. hazard) Ceiling panels broken/hanging with signs of mold c. Floor tiles should be replaced d. Cleanliness issues should be addressed. e. Furnace--vent cover missing (hazard) f. Ceramics/art room (#305-306) clutter needs to be cleaned up g. (numerous trip hazards including art, piles of papers (fire hazard)) 04/23/06 2005-2006 Grand Jury Report which will be a second 04/23/06 2005-2006 Grand Jury Report Classrooms # 317 & 318: The word that best describes these classrooms is DISASTER! This classrooms are used for instruction of Life Skills/functional. Electrical issues a. Ceiling panels b. Lack of organization/clutter c. d. No storage for media equipment-- Lack of cleanliness (stacks of papers, TV was left on, personal e. items-shoes, jackets, etc.-scattered on desks, counters), outdated posters on walls need to be removed, floors should be replaced (vinyl?)

Projects that need to be addressed promptly: A. Life Skills Area: This classrooms need to be classified as replacement classrooms. Classrooms # 301-303 are in such deteriorated state that they should not be used at present time. The room that is used for Life Skills instruction for cooking is in need of a complete renovation.

Kitchen appliances---refrigerator leaks, condensation forming, corrosion on bottom, moldy

Microwave---outdated, needs to be replaced

Stove----corroded, burners not working, dirty (fire hazard) 2005-2006 Grand Jury Report 04/23/06 04/23/06 2005-2006 Grand Jury Report Wrestling gyms: В. OUTDATED!

The Director and his staff to continually monitor the Department's operation to ensure that policies and procedures in all programs are followed and adhered to.

There should be a concerted effort to maintain a constant staff. Hire and fill vacancies as soon as possible and address and resolve the reasons for the staff's high turnover rate. Continuing education and constant awareness of needs and concerns of the staff will promote satisfied employees.

Develop and train staff on the proper procedures that are to be followed when Department issues and concerns arise.

The Peer Review System, Quality Improvement Committees and the Employee of the Month Program are important programs to continue. Assessing each other's work is an important "checks and balance" system. The Grand Jury may deem it necessary to perform a periodic review of the Mental Health Department to insure that all of the procedures and programs stated within this report are in fact being carried out to the best of everyone's ability. The Grand Jury also wishes to remind the San Benito County Mental Health Department that all staff programs and enhancements must be executed within the confines of the rules and regulations of our State and Federal Governments.

properties are being done and monitored by the County. gradicinate de la compactación de la compactación de la compactación de la compactación de la compactación de la compactación de la compactación de la compactación de la compactación de la compactación de la compactación d July 5, 2006 2005-2006 SBC Civil Grand Jury

The City is in dire need of improving its water supply, water delivery, and wastewater treatment systems. These systems in their present condition are unhealthy and unsafe. The citizens and business owners of San Juan Bautista deserve better. There is a lack of a real emergency water supply and a fire reserve that probably violates the State mandated fire storage reserve standards. The City now is in danger of losing a $3.8M Award and $3.1M in matching funds from the District for the needed upgrades. Approval of a mutually acceptable Joint Agreement is the key issue to starting the Project. The City and District both have had their Draft Joint Agreement versions available for review and negotiation for months. The District and City, over recent years, have worked together on the Project's issues, however, since the EDA Award, willingness to work out a mutually acceptable agreement has declined to the point of no contact, more so on the District's part. Negotiations are at a standstill and apparently neither side is willing to concede control of the project. February 28, 2006 2005-2006 SBC Civil Grand Jury The July 2005 District letter to the EDA was the action that led to the suspension of the EDA Award. It is the Grand Jury's view that having not advised the City of their intent to write to the EDA and then not sending a copy of the letter to the City displayed a level of arrogance and unprofessionalism on the District's part. In the Grand Jury's opinion a mixture of misunderstandings, personality conflicts, and general mistrust on the part of both sides has led to this stalemate situation. This attitude has failed both the citizens of San Juan Bautista and San Benito County. Both sides need to set aside differences, personal interests and work for the common good of the public they serve. Actions to resolve City and District differences and mediate a solution on this matter must be taken immediately! The City's residents and businesses continue to be at risk and estimated Project costs continue to escalate! The District has encumbered the process that would bring the Project to fruition and their unwillingness to negotiate has placed the Project in jeopardy. When a District official was interviewed by the Grand Jury on this matter, there was no sense of urgency expressed or a timetable given on resolving the Agreement issues with the City. The Grand Jury views this as misconduct on the District's part. The District, besides their agricultural interests, must look at the M&I needs of the County and cooperate with the City on their infrastructure upgrades. Because of the importance of this Project, not only to the City but also to the San Juan Valley, it is the Grand Jury's opinion that the District must be a partner in this Project. The District's charter and mission statements demand it. There is no choice on the District's part to withdraw. It is their responsibility to participate. They owe it to the citizens of San Juan Bautista whom for many years, through their property taxes, have been paying the District. The City's government must understand their need to represent its citizens for the public good and that it is sometimes necessary to partner with other County agencies to best achieve needed goals. They need the water management expertise and financial support that would be provided by the District. If the City were to conduct the Project without the District and still receive the $3.8M EDA Award, the balance due would be approximately $5.4M based upon present Project estimates. The City has advised that a Caltrans grant of $883K would also be applied. This then would leave the City with a debt of approximately $4.5M, $2M of which could have been nonreimbursement money received from the District as part of their matching funds! In the Grand Jury's opinion, the City should not attempt the Project on its own. It would cause an increased financial burden on the citizens of San Juan Bautista and could effect the future financial solvency of the City. The City must work with the District to obtain the EDA Grant and be a partner with the District on the Project. The EDA and Caltrans Awards coupled with the District's matching funds and then private financing represents the best path for acquiring the necessary funds. Finally, the citizens of San Juan Bautista have a right to know what their local government is doing when working on a Project of this nature. Therefore, the City and District's climate of non-disclosure and covertness on matters related to the Project must cease. er in the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the se 2005-2006 SBC Civil Grand Jury February 28, 2006

project report response SB High School report response SB High School report response Mental Health report response B-1-a City of San Juan Bautista JUAN SAN The "City of History" 186 May 10, 2006 P.O. Box 1420 311 Second Street Mr. John Sitton, Foreperson San Juan Bautista California 95045 San Benito County Civil Grand Jury (931) 623-4661 440 Fifth Street - Room 205 Fax (831)623-4093 Hollister, CA 95023 City Council Dear Foreperson Sitton: Mayor G. Dan Reed By means of a formal response to the Civil Grand Jury report of February 28, Vica Mayor 2006, I am pleased to inform you that the City of San Juan Bautista and San Priscilla Hill Benito County Water District have agreed in principle to a resolution to the Councilmember funding, administration and funding for the San Juan Bautista Water George Dias III Infrastructure Project. Subsequent to the delivery of the most recent City Councilmember proposal approved by the Council, the Water District responded on April 6, Charles Geiger 2006 with the attached letter approving the City proposal with minor Concilmember Arturo Medina conditions. Subsequent to the receipt of the above letter, I directed management and our attorney to draft a simplified agreement reflecting the City's proposal and the District's requests. On April 24, 2006 the Council unanimously approved an City Manager Januce McClintock agreement reflected the desires of both parties. The attached ratified agreement was delivered to the Water District for legal review and ratification city Clerk A. Shawna Serna on April 28, 2006. City Treasurer paul Petersen We have every reason to believe that the Water District will approve the attached document and that the City can begin to move ahead expeditiously Fire Chief Rick A. Cokley with the Water Project. I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the City. its citizens and ratepayers for your dedication of countless volunteer hours spent in the analysis of the project and issues surrounding its implementation. The work that you did mattered and had a significant affect in assisting to resolve many difficult issues. ng paragang dang pagalah dari baran dari sa merendi berandan dari Pinggan dari basah basah dari baran dari bar John Sitton, Foreperson May 10, 2006 Page 2 I look forward to keeping you informed as to the progress and hope to be able to invite you to a groundbreaking in the near future. Sincerely, 01 G. Dan Reed Мауог Enclosures: SBCWD 4-6-06 Letter Ratified Agreement × ** . . .... B-1-b COUNTY OF SAN BENITO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (831) 636-4000 · FAX (831) 636-4010 481 FOURTH STREET, HOLLISTER, CALIFORNIA 95023 May 23, 2006 San Benito County Civil Grand Jury 440 Fifth Street, Room 205 Hollister, CA. 95023 Attention: John Sitton Forman of the Grand Jury Dear Mr. Sitton: This is in response to your letter and Grand Jury Report dated February 28, 2006 regarding the City of San Juan Bautista Water System Project Funding Issue and

The Report's conclusion that general mistrust led to a stalemate in negotiations is generally true. However, putting mistrust aside, the District's main concern is and always has been the security of the District's investment in Zone 6. The District has a legal responsibility to its taxpayers/ratepayers in Zone 6 to include provisions in the Agreement ensuring that the District's loan will be repaid and the District's investment will, in fact, achieve the intended purposes as set forth in the Agreement. To ignore this responsibility would not only be gross negligence, but could subject the District liability to Zone 6 taxpayer/ratepayers. It is for foregoing reasons that the district has always insisted on a certain level of control as outlined in the Agreement. The Grand Jury has characterized the District's actions as being "arrogant." However, the District has been entrusted with public funds and must act responsibly as the public's trustee. Please keep in mind that negotiations between staff members of the City and District started over 2 years ago. These negotiations resulted in a stalemate because the City was either unwilling or unable to demonstrate to the District its ability to have the matching funds available for the Grant. Further, The City was unable or unwilling to study the rate structure necessary to pay for the project and the operation, maintenance, repair and replacement and the effect on City water rates to determine customer acceptance.. The Grant was not awarded by EDA in 2003/2004 and negotiations did not restart until EDA notified the City and District that the Grant had been awarded in 2005 Negotiations then began between the elected officials of each agency in a committee format. Negotiations stalemated again in mid 2005 for the same reasons set forth above—failure of the City to demonstrate fiscal responsibility. In a final effort to negotiate an Agreement, the District presented a new version of the contract at a meeting with representatives on March 23, 2006. This draft contained many of the revisions requested by the City. The City's response was that the proposed Agreement was no longer being considered and that the City was proceeding in a different direction.

Charges against the District alleging covertness and non- disclosure on matters related to the project are erroneous and unfair to the District. Had the Grand Jury been more thorough in its investigation it would have discovered that the District has regularly reported to the public on the status of negotiations with the City and the EDA Grant at monthly Board meetings over the last 2 years. At the dalija da iz ser ser ser ser sjerendijere, rara serendijere, ration delike delika Maddida Committee level, minutes were taken at each meeting and are available. Further, the Grand Jury would have gained a great deal of knowledge by interviewing the staff and Board members who were on the negotiating committee. Response to Recommendations On March 29, 2006, the City delivered to the District a new proposal which effectively discarded the proposed Agreement previously under consideration. The new proposal is a financing plan in which the District is to contribute $2,000,000.00 upon completion and acceptance of the water treatment plant, but the District would have no further involvement in the project other than to eventually serve San Felipe water to the treatment plant. The District responded on April 6, 2006, generally approving of the City's proposal and requesting that the City prepare a formal Agreement containing terms acceptable to the District. On May 1, 2006, the City presented the District with a draft Agreement and the District responded on May 19, 2006, with a revision of the draft Agreement. The correspondence and agreement referred to above are attached. Because of the City's change in direction, the Grand Jury's

14. Parenting Classes: Sexual Harassment Classes: Substance Abuse Counseling: Victim Awareness Classes: Vocational Classes: Volunteer Program: Work Program: Other: DISCIPLINE OF INMATES Frequency and Type: GRIEVANCES Types and Number of for each: TELEPHONE Access: CORRESPONDENCE Postage Free? . 8 Prepared by Chuck Page with data from the California Board of Corrections ALCOHOLD TO THE RESERVE OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF Incoming/Outgoing - Is Mail Read? Confidential Correspondence - Types of and how handled? VISITING Adequate Space, Convenient Times or Accommodations to Family's Work Schedule, etc., Special Visits: Do Staff Supervise Visits? Have All Inmates had Visits? - If not give reasons: EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM College Level/High School Level/Other: Name of District Providing Educational Services: Teachers – Number of Full-Time, Number of Substitutes: Number of Inmates in Educational Program: Number of Inmates in Each Classroom: Number of Inmates on Independent Study: Atmosphere of Classroom: Adequate Supplies? Books, Paper, Computers, etc. Activities and Coursework: الطائل المنظم المنظم والمنافض والمنافرة والمرافية والمنافرة والمرافية والمرافية والمرافية والمرافية والمرافية Are Inmates Required to do Homework? Number of Inmates Not Attending: Reason(s): Relationship between Educational Program Staff and Facility Staff: DESCRIBE ACCESS TO SCHOOL, RECREATION, EXERCISE, FOR INMATES CONFINED TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL CELLS/ROOMS: • A-4 Grand Jury Committee Check List Our goal is to get information not give it. Please do not offer opinions during the interview. Prepare in Advance: Α. choose a clear purpose developing key questions doing homework in advance B. Establish Rapport: introductions state purpose set time frame control format C. Ask Clear Questions: use open ended Questions avoid leading questions build on previous questions D. Listen Attentively: avoid judgmental responses summarize from time to time E. Focus: stay on target return to key topic F. Close Positively: ask for final questions summarize the interview thank the interviewee for their time and information Appendices - B PLAZA HOTEL SBJ water system

The Director stated that procedures for dispensing/prescribing medication are very clear.

The Director attends multi-agency meetings, which serves to benefit the Mental Health Department the County accesses their Union negotiated entitlement benefit to training registration tuition payment, in addition to our Department assigned training opportunities. Board of Supervisors Response: The recruitment and retention of qualified staff is a high priority. It is not clear what standard was used to conclude the department has a "high" turnover rate. Some level of turnover is normal and expected in all organizations. However, attention to succession planning and staff development opportunities is important and No necessary to mitigate the impacts of this phenomenon. systemic delay in recruitment is intended or warranted in Mental Health Programs as these positions are 100% offset by dedicated revenues. Significant training opportunities are provided and can be documented by the department. The Board of Supervisors will continue to support the department in these efforts.