Santa Barbara County Grand Jury

2014-2015

7 reports

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office evaluate the 66 S. San Antonio Road need for the requested operational equipment. Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Phone (805) 681-4145 Response to Recommendation 2: The recommendation has been implemented. Main Jail 4436 Calle Real The office furniture has been purchased and placed into service. Transportation Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Phone (805) 681-4260 vans are already in place and available to the Santa Maria Branch Jail via the Sheriff's Transportation Unit. These vans are assigned to North County and are located at the Santa Maria Sheriff's Station. COURT SERVICES CIVIL OFFICES The requests for the utility van, pepper ball launcher, gas masks and protective gear Santa Barbara requests are currently under review. When the Santa Maria Branch Jail was closed 1105 Santa Barbara Street on June 27, 2011, the utility van was reallocated within the agency. The proposal P.O. Box 690 Santa Barbara, CA 93102 to return this vehicle to the Santa Maria Branch Jail is being considered. The Phone (805) 568-2900 Sheriff's Office is also analyzing the need for a pepper ball launcher and related Santa Maria protective equipment based on the current inmate population and operational need. E. Cook Street, "O" P.O. Box 5049 The analysis and resulting decisions will be completed by June 30, 2015. Santa Maria, CA 93456 Phone (805) 346-7430 Ms. Sandi Miller, Foreperson RE: Updated Response to Recommendation 2 June 30, 2015 Updated Response to Recommendation 2: On April 13, 2015, the Sheriff's Office made the decision to no longer operate the Santa Maria Branch Jail as a Type II facility. This entailed rehousing all of the inmates back to the Santa Barbara Main Jail. We are now operating the Santa Maria Branch Jail as a 24/7 booking station only, which is classified as a Type I Facility per Title 15. Therefore, there is no longer an operational need for the equipment items listed as outstanding for decision. Should you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me at 681-4290. Sincerely, en LAZ SALINAS, CHIEF DEPUTY Custody Operations For BILL BROWN Sheriff - Coroner A Park

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings
F1: While the City of Santa Barbara Zoning Information Report, instituted in 1974, has served an important purpose, the State now requires many of these safeguards through the Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: That the City of Santa Barbara declare Zoning Information Reports voluntary, and used for informational purposes only.
F2: The practice of the City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department is that if information cannot be located by the Planning Technician II inspector, it is assumed it never existed and that owners must produce proof of its existence, or face violations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: That the City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department institute a policy that if staff cannot prove that the property was altered during the current ownership, the City presumes the alteration previously existed.
F3: Homeowners, after having spent many hundreds, often thousands of dollars to establish that an improvement was permitted, and that the City was incorrect, still bear the cost of the investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: That if the alleged violations prove to be incorrect, the City of Santa Barbara reimburse the homeowner for all costs incurred in the subsequent investigation.
F4: A City of Santa Barbara Zoning Information Report with no violations does not guarantee a future report will not show alleged unreported violations by previous owners. 2014-15
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: That the City of Santa Barbara provide certainty to the buyer by certifying each Zoning Information Report as accurate.
F5: If a violation reported on a City of Santa Barbara Zoning Information Report is found to be incorrect, the report is amended but the alleged violation is not necessarily removed by the Community Development Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: If a Zoning Information Report violation is found to be incorrect, that violation be removed entirely from the report.
F6: There is no formal appeal process. An “intent to dispute” is not an adequate appeals process.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6a: That the City of Santa Barbara establish an appeals process that requires an outside mediator.
R6b: That the Zoning Information Report include a prominently stated and documented appeal process.
F7: The City Zoning Information Report Planning Technician II inspectors do not typically research the property records prior to the site visit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The Planning Technician II inspector review all relevant files prior to a site visit.
F8: The basic cost of a City of Santa Barbara Zoning Information Report is $465.00, the highest in the State. Other municipalities charge considerably less.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: The price for a Zoning Information Report should be consistent with other municipalities.
F9: The requirement that a single-family residence maintain a covered, unobstructed, 20 foot by 20 foot parking space is overly restrictive.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: 10 2014-15 That the City rewrite this parking ordinance requirement in a more flexible manner while keeping on-street parking under control.
F10: There is no training manual for staff to conduct consistent Zoning Information Report inspections and reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: That the City of Santa Barbara write a detailed training manual defining the research policies, inspections, and procedures.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: The Sheriff’s detention facility heads were not consulted during the budget preparation process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: That the Sheriff’s detention facility heads be consulted during the annual budget preparation process.
F2: The Santa Maria Sheriff’s Branch Jail is in need of operational equipment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office evaluate the need for the requested operational equipment.
F3: 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: 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.
F4: Some City of Lompoc jailors carry jail facility keys in an unsecured manner on their person.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: That the City of Lompoc jailors carry the jail facility keys in a secure manner.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 13 findings
F1: 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.
F2: Guadalupe’s current debt payment obligations will increase annually until 2024 (see Table 2) with insufficient corresponding increases in revenue.
F3: The recent passage of Measures V, W, and X will not provide a long-term solution to Guadalupe's financial issues.
F4: There is no revenue to restore salary or benefits to employees who have agreed to furloughs and salary cuts, or to add staff.
F5: There is no revenue to build up a reserve fund for emergencies or pay for needed infrastructure repair.
F6: 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.
F7: 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.
F8: 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.
F9: 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.
F10: 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. 13
F11: 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.
F12: Guadalupe’s decades long hope and expectation that future housing and commercial development will improve its financial situation have not been realized.
F13: Disincorporation will freeze the existing debt of the City of Guadalupe at the current level.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.