San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
2021-2022
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Adelaida and Pleasant Valley-Estrella did not supply audits due to low revenue per County Auditor. Of the remaining Cemetery Districts, seven are current providing financial statement audits and two are delinquent.
F2:
Some Cemetery Districts give stipends to their Trustees. Other Cemetery Districts do not. Paso Robles stopped because of advice received from the State Social Security Administrator defining them as employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board of Trustees should review their Cemetery District’s policy on stipends in regard to the State of California Social Security Administrator letter on taxing of payments to Trustees (See Attachment #1).
F3:
Some Cemetery Districts accept credit cards for fee payments. Others do not.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All Cemetery Districts should provide ways to accept current forms of payments. The County has established ways to pay property taxes and other fees using alternate methods of payment for their charges. The Cemetery Districts should investigate how they could link to that payment method.
F4:
All Cemetery Districts are required by California Health & Safety Code Section 9065 to have an endowment care fund. The size of the funds varies appreciably. With the exception of Pleasant Valley-Estrella, all Cemetery Districts have an endowment care fund recorded within the County’s financial system.
F5:
Some of the Cemetery Districts have restroom facilities, some do not. Some Cemetery Districts have electricity, water and lighting, some do not.
F6:
Nine Cemetery Districts have a property tax base. Two do not receive tax revenue.
F7:
Some Cemetery Districts have equipment and maintenance facilities to provide upkeep. Some smaller districts contract these services.
F8:
Most Cemetery Districts include offices and provide easy contact information. Some have websites and some do not.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
All Cemetery Districts should have a website with full contact information or link to the Supervisors’ home page or another CSD link on the County website.
F9:
Some Cemetery Districts allow above ground monuments and headstones. Most have stopped.
F10:
Locations where cremated remains of the departed can be spread or placed in a niche are available at some of the Cemetery Districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
With the increase in cremations, Cemetery Districts should review the need for columbaria and/or scatter areas.
F11:
Security at the Cemetery Districts was not a serious problem for most. Lack of security has caused problems for some.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Those Cemetery Districts that rely on volunteers should assure that the sites are safe by removing dangerous conditions as required.
R6:
All Cemetery Districts should have liability insurance paid for by the County.
F12:
The Pleasant Valley-Estrella Cemetery currently pays for liability insurance for the Estrella Cemetery, which is located on land owned by the Methodist Church.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Clear title to the Estrella Cemetery property should be acquired by the County.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
All Cemetery District Boards should have meetings, even if they are virtual, as required by law.
R8:
Those Cemetery Districts that have needs and wants should investigate the County Grant system.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The County established a County-wide special (standalone) property tax specifically to pay for its 1963 contractual obligation to the DWR for a 25,000 AFY allocation of water from the SWP.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County, working with its Tax Collector, needs to obtain expert legal interpretation for the use of revenue derived from the sale of property tax-purchased State Water, past and future.
F2:
Since 1993, nearly 40% of the SWP allocation has been assigned (i.e., sold) to subcontractors, leaving County property taxpayers responsible to pay for 15,173 AFY of State Water.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County must ensure that only reasonable administrative charges attributable to the collection of taxes and payment of State Water Contract expenses be charged to the State Water Contract Tax Fund 0646. The County should clearly explain and justify the recent significant increases in “Administration and Accounting” charges to the State Water Contract Tax Fund 0646.
F3:
The County sold $6.3 M worth of this property tax-funded allocation and has not credited the County’s State Water Contract Tax Fund 0646 with those proceeds. The County deposited these proceeds into its District Zone General Fund 0643 which is governed by the County Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should ensure that all funds derived from past and future sales and/or exchanges of the County SWP allotment be credited to the State Water Contract Tax Fund 0646 and reduce the financial tax burden placed on property owners.
F4:
Based on the Board approved budgets, administrative charges to the State Water Contract Tax Fund 0646 have gone from $35,000 in 2003/2004 tax year, to $124,756 in the 2019/2020 tax year. Budgeted administrative charge for 2021/2022 is $187,000 - a five-fold increase over the 2003/2004 charge.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
When the State Water Contract revenue exceeds the taxpayer burden, the County could use the balance to explore water resource projects with County-wide benefits.
F5:
Property tax revenues collected to pay for State Water obligations continue to increase.
F6:
The County’s Tax Collector’s Office acknowledged the County’s use of State Water Contract revenues is open to legal interpretation and deserves to be reconsidered prior to future tax rate determinations.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The cities of Atascadero, Grover Beach, Paso Robles, and San Luis Obispo, who operate their own Public Safety Answering Points, could benefit financially and operationally by contracting their dispatch operation with Cal Fire and the County Sheriff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The cities of Atascadero, Grover Beach, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo should each request a proposal from the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff and Cal Fire to provide contract dispatch services and present it as an option in future budgets. The City of Atascadero will not implement R1 at this time, citing the following reasons: • Significant capital costs for procurement of compatible equipment • Loss of City control on quality, method, and costs of dispatch services • Increased costs to City to cover ancillary duties currently covered by dispatchers • Disparity in salary and benefit between the City and the contracting agencies • Lack of institutional knowledge required for safety and service levels when responding to calls that are not available through GPS technology or mapping and traffic analysis provided by Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) • No option for specific mapping services such as Quickest Route or Pulse Point apps Submitted December 16, 2021 3 The City of Grover Beach has not implemented R1 but continues to analyze the recommendation as follows: • The cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach are currently working together to develop a regional approach to emergency communications center services for law enforcement. The two cities have worked together on a temporary agreement for such services since September 1, 2020. The current arrangement has proven beneficial and is being explored for expansion to a full-time regional emergency communication center to be hosted by Pismo Beach. This information will be presented to the City Council in 2021 in conjunction with the FY 2021-23 budget process. A separate request for costing of emergency communication center services has been requested from the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office, and this information will also be shared with the City Council during the FY 2021-23 budget process. The City of Grover Beach contracts fire services through a Joint Powers Agreement with the Five Cities Fire Authority. In 2018, the Fire Authority began contracting fire and medical communications services through Cal Fire’s regional dispatch center. The City of Paso Robles will not implement R1 for the following reasons: • “To be successful, however, such discussions have two key requirements: 1. There must, in fact, be an alternative to the current approach that is demonstrably beneficial to all parties; and 2. All parties must be motivated to find mutually beneficial and agreeable solutions to the full spectrum of policy, operational, and fiscal issues that arise in such discussions. Up to this point, neither key requirement has been met with respect to either Fire or Police Dispatch services.” Finally, the Sheriff’s 911 dispatch center does not dispatch fire calls. Thus, consolidating with other jurisdictions would mean de- consolidating dispatching operations for the City. Cooperation between our Police and Fire responders might be negatively impacted, as there would be a decrease in structured coordination and communications. For these reasons it appears profitable for the City of Paso Robles to maintain its existing emergency communications center and to continue to provide superior Police and Fire dispatching to the City as cost effectively as possible. As we have done consistently in the past, we will continue to examine joint dispatch and other options for being even more cost effective in the future. Submitted December 16, 2021 4 The City of San Luis Obispo will not implement R1 for the following reasons: • The City of San Luis Obispo recently conducted an extensive analysis of its communications operations. A consolidated dispatch center was not fiscally advantageous to other cities in the study. After reviewing the costs cited in the Grand Jury report, several local fire chiefs under contract with CAL FIRE San Luis Unit Emergency Command Center reported that their costs exceeded the reported figures in the Grand Jury report. The City of Pismo Beach will not implement R1 for the following reasons: • The City of Pismo Beach disagrees with the recommendation insofar as it implies that the City would be better off contracting dispatch services to the San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Department. If the recommendation is based on cost, the City has not requested a quote for service from the San Luis Obispo Sheriff, nor have we seen one generated on our behalf and, therefore, the City of Pismo Beach has no idea if the cost would be reduced or not. Additionally, the Sheriff has not offered a rate structure or proven to the City that their costs are substantially lower than the City’s costs. Of greater importance, cost is but one factor to be considered. Service to the residents is very important. In respect to service quality, there is no better service to the residences of Pismo Beach than our own nationally accredited agency through the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement (CALEA). Pismo Beach does currently assist the City of Grover Beach with its dispatch function and both agencies are currently evaluating the efficacy on their joint efforts in this regard. Pismo Beach would also welcome discussions with other neighboring agencies so they might benefit as well from the high caliber of communications services the City provides to its own residents and those of the City of Grover Beach.
F2:
The County Sheriff and Cal Fire have demonstrated that they can provide cost effective and operational dispatch service that is equal to or better than the smaller agencies in San Luis Obispo County through contracting. Submitted December 16, 2021 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff and Cal Fire should modify their contingency plans for dispatch to all seven cities into a viable alternative to the proposed co-dispatch center. The Sheriff’s Office will not be implementing R2 at this time. Contracting dispatch services is the choice for each incorporated city. Even though there are likely cost savings, there are other factors they must consider, such as long-term dependencies on service and loss of some control. If all cities chose to contract for services, the Sheriff’s current facility would not be large enough to accommodate them. If PG&E were to vacate their offices in the EOC building, it is possible the Submitted December 16, 2021 5 vacated floorspace could be used to expand current Sheriff’s dispatch operations. However, as the Grand Jury has noted in its report, the EOC building was built in 1984 and does not meet a number of code requirements. With renovations necessary for the current PG&E building, considerable funds would be needed to upgrade the necessary floorplans to accommodate an expansion of the Sheriff’s dispatch center. Moving the current EOC would not be practical and would be costly. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will not be implementing R2 for the same reasons articulated by the Sheriff’s Office.
F3:
The portion of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) building now allocated to County Sheriff Dispatch operations is insufficient to provide dispatch service to all seven cities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors should require the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff to provide a clear, long-term pricing for dispatch service with and without the proposed co-dispatch center. The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office will not be implementing R3 at this time. It would not be prudent to offer long-term pricing for dispatch service to any additional cities until the issue of sufficient floorspace is resolved. This requires the Board of Supervisors to decide if they want to direct public funds to a 41-year-old building to make it usable as a co-located dispatch center and relocation EOC. The Sheriff’s Office remains committed to the establishment of a co-located dispatch center with Cal Fire as a best possible way to improve the coordination of emergency resources to the public. If a co-located dispatch center is constructed, the Sheriff’s Office would support the Grand Jury’s recommendation, provided the floorspace for Sheriff’s dispatch in the new building is not reduced in order to reduce construction costs. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will not implement R3 at this time citing the same reasoning offered by the Sheriff’s Office.
F4:
A state-of-the-art dispatch center could be a benefit to the County Sheriff’s aging building inventory, but the real benefit for taxpayers and residents countywide is financial and operational efficiencies of a joint agency dispatch service. While not asked by the Grand Jury to respond to the Findings, the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office agreed with all the Findings by the 2019/20 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors should include the reallocation of space in the EOC building for expanded dispatch operations in their current negotiations with PG&E regarding the closing of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in 2025. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will not implement R4 at this time. Amendment One to a contract between the County and PG&E was on the Board of Supervisor’s agenda in December 2020 to allow for lease extensions through 2029 of the EOC facility at 1525 Kansas Avenue in San Luis Obispo. The amendment also transfers ownership of the building to the County Submitted December 16, 2021 6 on January 1, 2030. The amendment was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 4, 2020. Additionally, the County is using a design-build construction process for a new co-located dispatch center. The facility is planned to allow for estimated expansion over the next 20 years.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
There is an ongoing problem with introduction of contraband into the facility via the West Facility fence near the exercise yard. Response: No response was required or received from the California Men’s colony.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The State should consider additional security measures to monitor blind spots in the security fence in the West Facility. Response: No response was required or received from the California Men’s colony.
F2:
The WWII era buildings that are used to house the fire crews in the West Facility are in poor repair. Response: No response was required or received from the California Men’s colony. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY JAIL
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The State should plan for the rehabilitation or replacement of the WWII era buildings in the West facility. Response: No response was required or received from the California Men’s colony. Submitted November 30, 2021 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CORONER’S FACILITY
F3:
The Sheriff’s Department has done an exceptional job of improving the overall quality of care for inmates. Response: The Sheriff’s Department agreed with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Plans for additional space should be developed to expand the working area. Response: The Sheriff’s Department advises that this recommendation will not be implemented at this time. The Sheriff’s Department has developed a plan and would like to add additional space once space and funding become available. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Sheriff’s Department response.
F4:
The use of Wellpath, being overseen by the County Chief Medical Officer, to provide the medical, dental and mental health care for the inmates, has improved the recognition of potential problems before they become major issues. Response: The Sheriff’s Department agreed with this finding. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CORONER’S FACILITY
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Coroner’s records should be digitized to save space. Response: The Sheriff’s Department advises that this recommendation will not be implemented at this time. The Sheriff’s Department further advises that maintaining the original coroner’s case file is important as documents, photographs, or other evidentiary items may be needed in the future to settle legal questions about a decedent’s identity or other circumstances of their death. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Sheriff’s Department response.
F6:
It is the observation of the Grand Jury that the space is inadequate and insufficient and needs to be addressed. Response: The Sheriff’s Department disagrees partially with this finding. The department believes that the current facility is adequate but not ideal and could use expansion. A summary of responses to the Grand Jury recommendations follows: CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Not having the full complement of additional security guards has had an indeterminate effect on the reduction of reported behavior problems. The County Health Agency agreed with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
It is recommended that the PHF security staff be increased to 4.0 FTEs per the August 2019 authorization. The County Health Agency advises that the recommendation has been partially implemented. The County’s contract with the security company does include 4 FTEs of security support. However, the contracted agency has not always had appropriate staffing to continuously fill those slots. Behavioral Health will continue to work with the company to increase staffing availability. If it is unable to maintain the level of contracted positions, Behavioral Health will consider other options, including a new request for proposals to elicit