Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
2016-2017
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (23)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
No single entity has decision or enforcement power within Santa Barbara County to lead regional planning. ID No.1 Response to Finding 1: Respectfully disagree with the finding to the extent that there is an entity that has such regional authority on behalf of its contracting agencies. The Central Coast Water Authority ("CCWA") is a joint powers authority agency consisting of 12 contracting agencies, which have decision and enforcement powers pursuant to State law and its CCWA successfully plans and implements water governing policies. supplies deliveries from the State of California to its 12 contracting agencies throughout Santa Barbara County, financially transacts and controls funding for the operation and maintenance of the regional transmission system and treatment facility, and, throughout the drought of 2011-2016 was solely instrumental in securing supplemental and emergency water for the benefit the agencies it serves. CCWA is uniquely qualified to continue to serve as lead in regional water planning and make decisions as a regional board. P.O. BOX 157 • 3622 SAGUNTO STREET, SANTA YNEZ, CA 93460 (805) 688-6015 • FAX: (805) 688-3078 • WWW.SYRWD.ORG
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Santa Barbara County Water Agency be designated as the permanent lead agency of the Santa Barbara Cooperating Partners and granted enforcement power to ensure reliability of Santa Barbara County water supplies. ID No.1 Response to Recommendation 1: Respectfully disagree with the reference and cannot support that the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be designated as the permanent lead agency to ensure reliability of water supplies for the region and ID No.1. ID No.1 was formed in 1959 pursuant to the California Water Code 74000 & 75000 with broad powers and authority over its water supplies and other latent powers, and has wide-ranging governance powers afforded by that law. As such, ID No.1 is controlled by an elected governing body that represents its interests and rate paying constituents with the authority to control financing, acquire and manage water supplies, and act as lead agency to make water supply decisions at a local level while coordinating and participating on a regional basis. ID No.1 has secured water rights in the Santa Ynez River, it contracts and funds its prorated cost share for State Water Project ("SWP") water through CCWA, interacts with Bureau of Reclamation and pays for all costs for its allocated water supply from the Cachuma Project, and conjunctively operates and manages its groundwater source of supply in the Santa Ynez Upland Groundwater Basin. ID No.1 with its local and regional water supplies are subject to Federal and State licenses, permits and regulations that ensure public health, safety, and trust resources are protected. The Water Agency does not have the governance structure to fairly represent ID No.1's local and regional water supplies. The County has no voting structure to represent ID No.1's water supplies, nor fiduciary responsibility, it has no role providing water service as it has no customers, no infrastructure, no permits or licenses issued by the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB") or Division of Drinking Water, does not set water rates, nor direct accountability to the customers receiving water from ID No.1; thus no water management experience. Although this recommendation in concept may appeal to those on the Grand Jury, the Santa Barbara County Water Agency is not impartial due to the complexities and divergent positions regarding water supply, has conflicting policy goals per the SWRCB hearing record 2003, and has also relinquished its one role as a lead agency in 2013 in the IRWM grant process leaving it to the local water agencies. As such, another layer of governmental control would further constrain and obfuscate the ability of ID No.1 as a water management agency under its governance authority pursuant to the California Water Code.
F9:
None of the Santa Barbara County south coast water purveyors has established a capital replacement account. ID No.1 Response to Finding 9: A point of clarification is needed. ID No.1 is not a south coast water purveyor. The south coast is a geographic region or location in the coastal plains of the county and that is uniquely separated by the Santa Ynez Range. ID No.1 is in the central portion of the County north of the Santa Ynez Range. Disagree with the Finding. ID No.1 has both a capital repair and replacement, and plant expansion reserve used to fund capital projects. 10 9
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
That each Santa Barbara County south coast water purveyor establish and fund a restricted capital replacement account. ID No.1 Response to Recommendation #9: The ID No.1 Board established a reserve policy and reviews and updates those policies from time-to-time. The ID No.1 capital repair and replacement, and plant expansion reserves (accounts) are unrestricted, Board reserved and approved for funding in accordance with the Capital Improvement Plan and with Board action on the annual budget. These reserves are replenished with year-end unexpended revenues. ID No.1 also has on deposit with CCWA a "rate coverage reserve fund" for the purpose of complying with the rate covenant for maintaining financial coverage. The Board maintains the authority to restrict reserves. Because the report
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
No single entity has decision or enforcement power within Santa Barbara County to lead regional planning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be designated as the permanent lead agency of the Santa Barbara County Cooperating Partners and granted enforcement power to ensure reliability of Santa Barbara County water supplies.
F2:
Additional supply sources such as desalination and recycled water are available to localized agencies but there is no concerted effort to develop them regionally.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a:
That Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with San Luis Obispo County, explore the Diablo Canyon desalination plant as a source of water.
R2b:
That the Montecito Water District and Carpinteria Valley Water District develop more cooperation in water recycling efforts.
F3:
The South Coast Conduit pipeline system is unable to accommodate peak water demand levels and is susceptible to single point failure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That a redundant (parallel) pipeline system be built from the existing South Portal of the Tecolote Tunnel through Carpinteria to minimize the possibility of single point failure.
F4:
The Upper Reach Reliability Project portion of the South Coast Conduit pipeline was not completed as originally planned.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Upper Reach Reliability Project portion of the South Coast Conduit pipeline be completed.
F5:
Critical pipeline infrastructure, including redundancy, has not been developed throughout southern Santa Barbara County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That critical pipeline infrastructure, including redundancy, be developed throughout southern Santa Barbara County.
F6:
Funding under Propositions 50, 84 and 1E has not yet been granted to the County of Santa Barbara for the Cooperating Partners of Santa Barbara County Integrated Regional Water Management’s prioritized list of water supply projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the funding applied for by the County of Santa Barbara on behalf of the Cooperating Partners of Santa Barbara County Integrated Regional Water Management is actively pursued.
F7:
The meetings of the Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board do not adequately reveal to the public the competing and conflicting objectives.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7a:
That all Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board meetings be telecast live on community channels.
R7b:
That Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board meetings be digitally recorded and posted on their website for greater transparency.
F8:
The Tecolote Tunnel is a single point failure location that is in urgent need of maintenance and reinforcement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
That Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board develop and implement a plan to maintain and reinforce the Tecolote Tunnel.
F9:
None of the Santa Barbara County south coast water purveyors has established capital replacement accounts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
That each Santa Barbara County south coast water purveyor establish and fund a restricted capital replacement account.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County General Services Department have not developed a prioritized list for repair projects at the Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff develop a prioritized list for repair projects at the Main Jail within the next six months.
R1b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these repair projects.
F2:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County General Services Department have not developed a prioritized list for replacement projects at the Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff develop a prioritized list for replacement projects at the Main Jail within the next six months.
R2b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these replacement projects.
F3:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Barbara County General Services Department have not developed a prioritized list for repurposing projects at the Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff develop a prioritized list for repurposing projects at the Main Jail within the next six months.
R3b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these repurposing projects.
F4:
Funding availability for Main Jail repair, replacement and repurposing will be problematic based on current budget forecasts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors identify alternative funding resources for Main Jail repair, replacement and repurposing such as using a portion of the Strategic Reserve, new tax initiatives, General Obligation Bonds or creation of a specific reserve account or any combination of these.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Radio reception in some areas patrolled by the deputies working out of Santa Barbara County Substations is poor with many dead spots.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office upgrade its radio system ensuring coverage in all areas, which will help protect deputies and citizens.
F2:
There is a Custody Deputy shortage in the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department hire more personnel to fill these vacancies.
F3:
Internal surveillance cameras at the Santa Maria Police Department have not been installed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the City of Santa Maria complete the installation of the cameras.
F4:
Not all Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Deputies have been trained in the use of various restraint systems being used by different agencies throughout the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That all Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Deputies receive training in various restraint systems used by different agencies throughout the County.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The City of Santa Maria has stated that its new Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety will be confined to youth-serving agencies within the city limits of Santa Maria.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria expand the service area of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety to include youth-serving agencies in the entire Santa Maria Valley.
F2:
The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria’s exclusive control of the strategic plan’s design and implementation may cause costly delays.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria delegate certain discretionary authority for routine operational decisions in order to avoid costly delays to the implementation of the strategic plan.
F3:
The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria initially refused to collaborate with the 5th District Santa Barbara County Supervisor in utilizing the $75,000 allocation from the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for the hiring of an executive level coordinator for the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria strengthen their collaboration with the 5th District Santa Barbara County Supervisor and the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to expand their ongoing support for a regional program under executive-level leadership.
F4:
The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria have not yet identified reliable, permanent sources of funding needed to maintain the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety programs and staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That the Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria within the next six months identify reliable, permanent sources of funding for the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety programs and staff.
F5:
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors has shown support for the development of an at-risk youth program in North County by allocating $75,000 in budget year 2016-17, of which approximately $50,000 remains.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors commit to reserving the remaining approximately $50,000 allocation and continue with annual financial support for the at-risk youth program in North County.
F6:
The Mayor and the City Council of Santa Maria have not included representatives at the policy-making level of parents and at-risk youth who would be directly affected by the services of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
That the Mayor and City Council of Santa Maria include parents and at-risk youth representing the diversity of the community in the first tier of the Santa Maria Mayor’s Task Force from the beginning of the planning and decision-making process.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
A Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member twice voted on pay increases that benefited his spouse.
F2:
The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not have adequate control of how 5 http://www.localethics.fppc.ca.gov/login.aspx 2015-16 LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT expenditures of the General Fund are being allocated and tracked.
F3:
A Lompoc Unified School District employee traveled to a conference with her spouse, a Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member, and she failed to reimburse expenses as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350.
F4:
The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education has allowed a hostile work environment to exist.
F5:
The Lompoc Unified School District does not adequately account for the presence of its staff and management during work hours.
F6:
The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not include its members in the “Employment of Relatives” Policy BP 4112.8/4312.8 (See Appendix D).
F7:
Members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education are not required to receive ethics training.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1a:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education require that the spouse’s pay increases be reimbursed to the Lompoc Unified School District.
R1b:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education members recuse themselves from discussing and voting on issues that give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest.
R2:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education obtain an independent, specific audit of the General Fund expenditures to clarify the use of public funds.
R3a:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education enforce the Lompoc Unified School District travel policy as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350.
R3b:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education prepare appropriate forms or put in place a tracking system so that the business office has a method to collect pre-paid travel expenses from employees.
R4a:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education add a policy prohibiting all District employees, Board members, and officials from engaging in abusive conduct as defined in Government Code section 12950.1, subdivisions (b) and (g)(2) [“conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include … verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.”]
R4b:
That, after the Lompoc Unified School District adopts the policy described above, the District post, distribute, and provide training on that policy throughout the organization, and enforce it.
R5:
That the Lompoc Unified School District enforce an attendance policy for staff and management to ensure they are present and accounted for during work hours. 130 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
R6:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education revise its Policy, BP 4112.8/4312.8, to include members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education.
R7:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education adopt a policy to require ethics training for Board members on par with AB1234 “Local Ethics Training” requirements.
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
The meeting minutes are far too detailed and are not submitted to and approved by the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors in a timely manner.
F2:
Neither the Board of Directors nor key employees have ever attended ethics training courses. The Board of Directors has the authority to mandate ethics training for key employees.
F3:
No job descriptions exist for Assistant Operator, Relief Secretary, Maintenance Worker, and Assistant Maintenance Worker.
F4:
Job descriptions for Manager for Water/Sewer Operations and Controller have not been updated for several years.
F5:
The Cuyama Community Services District Personnel Policy Manual has no policy addressing conflicts of interest such as nepotism.
F6:
The Board of Directors has failed to follow its policy set forth in the Personnel Policy Manual Section XIV, Part 2 and allowed “Offensive, abusive, or persistent discourteous treatment of the public or fellow employees”. 16 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___
F7:
The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has no succession plan for the positions of Manager for Water/Sewer Operations or Controller.
F8:
Required annual personnel performance reviews have not been conducted in accordance with Section XXIII of the Cuyama Community Services District’s Personnel Policy Manual.
F9:
The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has not enforced its delinquent account enforcement policy, CCSD Water Policy, Article 10 - Discontinuance of Service, 1-1003, Non-payment of Bills.
F10:
That the Cuyama Community Services District will need to increase its revenues to remain financially viable.
F11:
The public needs to be informed of the need for and implementation of future water and wastewater rate increases.
F12:
That the existing telephone system does not adequately support teleconferencing.
F13:
The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has not enforced CCSD Policy 91- 1 regarding the personal use of District owned vehicles.
F14:
The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors does not receive any compensation.
F15:
The heavy workload for the Controller position impacts the timely completion of some required functions.
Additional Recommendations
27
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
2015-16 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors require that the minutes be succinct and submitted for acceptance at the next scheduled meeting.
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to conduct a study of ways to increase the utilization of the Los Prietos Boys Camp.
R1b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to reevaluate its acceptance criteria and process to develop methods to increase the number of youth who are ordered to the Los Prietos Boys Camp program.
R1c:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to evaluate the possibility of decreasing the lengths of the programs in order to accommodate more youth.
R2:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors include biennial ethics training within the job descriptions of key employees including the Manager of Water/Sewer Operations and the Controller.
R3:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors ensure job descriptions are prepared for all employees.
R3a:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include the required water releases for the protection of fish habitat under the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion.
R3b:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency add language to include the amount of water that will be required to be released by the new Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Services when it is released.
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors revise the Grading Code to specify how many times within a given timeframe the property owner can move less than 50 cubic yards of earth without a permit.
R4a:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors require the existing but obsolete job description for Manager for Water/Sewer Operations be updated to include licensing requirements professional qualifications, and response time expectations, at a minimum.
R4b:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors require the existing but obsolete job description for the Controller be updated.
R5:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors add a policy on conflicts of interest such as nepotism to its Personnel Practices Manual.
R5a:
That the term of the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be less than 25 years in length.
R5b:
That the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include periodic mandatory review and revision clauses on the order of every five or six years to recalculate the “safe yield” of Lake Cachuma and to make any other necessary contract changes. 66 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE
R6:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors enforce Section XIV (Disciplinary Actions Against Employees) Part 2 of its Personnel Policy Manual.
R7:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors establish an orderly succession plan for the positions of Manager for Water/Sewer Operations and Controller.
R8:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors and Manager for Water/Sewer Operations conduct annual performance reviews of all employees.
R8a:
That the member units, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, create consistent policies and procedures that govern conservation efforts especially during times of a severe drought and that these are documented in the subcontracts between the Santa Barbara County Water Agency and the member units.
R8b:
That the policies and procedures in Recommendation 8a be announced to the community by all member units at the same time.
R9:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors enforce its delinquent accounts collection policy.
R10:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors implement the rate increases recommended in the October 2015 CCSD Water and Wastewater Rate Study by the Rural Community Assistance Corporation.
R11:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors initiate a public education program regarding the need for water and wastewater rate increases. 2015-16 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
R12:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors ensure an adequate teleconferencing system is available.
R13:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors enforce its existing policy regarding the personal use of District owned vehicles.
R14:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors consider compensating board members.
R15:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors make more frequent use of the Relief Secretary to reduce the workload of the Controller.
R29-15:
reductions for urban water suppliers May 2015 Stage 2 Carpinteria Valley Water District Stage 3 City of Santa Barbara and Goleta Water District Sept 2015 Stage 2 Santa Ynez Water Conservation District ID No. Each stage of declared drought can mean something different at each water agency. Most drought stages set limits on outside water use. Unique among agencies enacting water use restrictions is the Montecito Water District. Rather than limiting water uses and adding a drought surcharge to water bills, which would compensate for some of the reduced revenue from decreased water use, MWD (in Ordinance 93) gave an allotment of water to each customer based on property size, enacted penalties for overuse, and added a moratorium on water service connections. Of concern to the Jury is the action taken by MWD, and the confusing message it sent to its customers with the passage of Ordinance 94, in March 2015. Ordinance 94 was enacted in response to a successful search to buy supplemental state water on the open market. In this ordinance, the MWD Board of Directors approved an increase in water allotments to their customers. This occurred just one month before the Governor of California enacted an unprecedented executive order for statewide mandatory water use reductions. Member units need to work together to send a clear message to their constituents, to reduce confusion and to emphasize the severity of the water shortages all residents are facing. Of benefit to the regional water community would be a consistent set of defined conservation 62 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department is inconsistent in its enforcement of grading violations.
F2:
There is no present requirement for the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department inspectors to investigate questionable grading activities they observe unless a complaint is filed by a member of the community.
F3:
Because the Code is vague in its definition of time frame, grading inspectors for North and South County differ in their interpretation of how to enforce the Santa Barbara County Grading Code, Chapter 14, when processing Land Use Development Permit Applications that include grading of 50 cubic yards or more of earth.
F4:
The Grading Code, Chapter 14, (Sections 14-6, 14-8, 14-9.2) does not state how often a property owner can move less than 50 cubic yards of earth, which is exempt from the permitting process; allowing a property owner to move massive amounts of earth in multiple 49.9 cubic yard increments without any timeframe limitation. 42 2015-16 County Santa Barbara Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY – GRADING CODE
F5:
The Grading Code, Chapter 14, (Sections 14-6, 14-8, 14-9.2) does not state what degree of compaction is used in defining what constitutes 50 cubic yards of earth.
F6:
Santa Barbara County Land Use Development Code Chapter 35 section 35.84.040 allows multiple permit revisions, which can incrementally and substantially expand the scope of a permit without notice or review by adjacent property owners.
F7:
Differences between the Santa Barbara County Grading Code and local Community Plans regarding definition of slope cause inconsistent grading and enforcement.
F8:
The change does not affect easements for trails, public access, or open space.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors review and revise the Santa Barbara County Grading Code, Chapter 14, to include language that ensures more consistent enforcement.
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors mandate that the County Planning and Development Department inspectors investigate all questionable grading activities that they observe, or become aware of by any other means.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors revise the Santa Barbara County Grading Code, Chapter 14, to further define its 50 cubic yard criterion; specifically, how it relates to time frame and/or permit.
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors revise the Grading Code to specify how many times within a given timeframe the property owner can move less than 50 cubic yards of earth without a permit.
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors mandate that the County Planning and Development Department revise the Grading Code, Chapter 14, (Sections 14-6, 14-8. and 14- 9.2) to further define 50 cubic yards of earth, as it applies to compaction.
R6:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department to revise the Santa Barbara County Land Use Development Code Chapter 35 section 35.84.040 to notify neighbors whenever they consider revisions on active projects to ensure that all affected parties are included in the notice and review process.
R7:
That the Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department to establish internal policies which eliminate inconsistencies between the County grading code and local Community Plans, regarding the definitions of slope.
R8:
The change does not affect easements for trails, public access, or open space.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
A Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member twice voted on pay increases that benefited his spouse.
F2:
The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not have adequate control of how 5 http://www.localethics.fppc.ca.gov/login.aspx 2015-16 LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT expenditures of the General Fund are being allocated and tracked.
F3:
A Lompoc Unified School District employee traveled to a conference with her spouse, a Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member, and she failed to reimburse expenses as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350.
F4:
The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education has allowed a hostile work environment to exist.
F5:
The Lompoc Unified School District does not adequately account for the presence of its staff and management during work hours.
F6:
The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not include its members in the “Employment of Relatives” Policy BP 4112.8/4312.8 (See Appendix D).
F7:
Members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education are not required to receive ethics training.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1a:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education require that the spouse’s pay increases be reimbursed to the Lompoc Unified School District.
R1b:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education members recuse themselves from discussing and voting on issues that give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest.
R2:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education obtain an independent, specific audit of the General Fund expenditures to clarify the use of public funds.
R3a:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education enforce the Lompoc Unified School District travel policy as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350.
R3b:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education prepare appropriate forms or put in place a tracking system so that the business office has a method to collect pre-paid travel expenses from employees.
R4a:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education add a policy prohibiting all District employees, Board members, and officials from engaging in abusive conduct as defined in Government Code section 12950.1, subdivisions (b) and (g)(2) [“conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include … verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.”]
R4b:
That, after the Lompoc Unified School District adopts the policy described above, the District post, distribute, and provide training on that policy throughout the organization, and enforce it.
R5:
That the Lompoc Unified School District enforce an attendance policy for staff and management to ensure they are present and accounted for during work hours. 130 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
R6:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education revise its Policy, BP 4112.8/4312.8, to include members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education.
R7:
That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education adopt a policy to require ethics training for Board members on par with AB1234 “Local Ethics Training” requirements.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The drug drop box at the Santa Maria Sheriff’s Substation was not properly maintained.
F2:
The Coroner’s Office urgently needs a new facility.
F3:
The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 was written prior to the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion and does not include the requirement to release water under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act.
F4:
The 2011-2016 drought is far worse than the “design drought” of 1947-1952 used in the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 for Lake Cachuma.
F5:
The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 extending from 1995 to 2020 (25 years) is too long a period and includes no review and revision clauses to recalculate the “safe yield” of the Cachuma Project.
F6:
Safe yield from Lake Cachuma in the current United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, California, Contract Between the United States and Santa Barbara County Water Agency Providing for Water Service from the Project, 1995 is based on a static volume per year.
F7:
The Montecito Water District does not have an updated Urban Water Management Plan.
F8:
Conservation policies and drought declarations differ from one member unit to another, possibly confusing water users.
F9:
The City of Santa Barbara has started to rebuild its desalination facility and has been in intermittent discussions with the Montecito Water District on sharing use of the facility.
F10:
The Carpinteria Valley Water District no longer participates in the Cachuma Conservation Release Board yet continues to reap the benefits of negotiations paid for by the remaining agencies.
F11:
Member units approve new water service by issuing, can and will serve letters, intent to serve letters, water service availability documents, or other documents, without expiration dates to citizens and developers.
F12:
Member units utilize can and will serve letters, intent to serve letters, water service availability documents, or other documents to grant new water service that are approved based on water availability during a “normal” year’s water supply.
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s staff regularly monitor and maintain the new drug drop off boxes throughout the County. 2015-16 DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors immediately allocate funding for a new facility.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff obtain and install video recording equipment in the Lompoc Court Holding Facility.
R3a:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include the required water releases for the protection of fish habitat under the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion.
R3b:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency add language to include the amount of water that will be required to be released by the new Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Services when it is released.
R4:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency calculate new water entitlements for member units using the current 2011-2016 worst case drought as its “design drought”.
R5:
That the Lompoc City Council update or replace the Police Department building.
R5a:
That the term of the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be less than 25 years in length.
R5b:
That the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include periodic mandatory review and revision clauses on the order of every five or six years to recalculate the “safe yield” of Lake Cachuma and to make any other necessary contract changes. 66 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE
R6:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include a new safe yield in Year One after Lake Cachuma spills, and, in subsequent years, use either a sliding scale or specify mandatory reductions.
R7:
That the Montecito Water District update its Urban Water Management Plan.
R8a:
That the member units, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, create consistent policies and procedures that govern conservation efforts especially during times of a severe drought and that these are documented in the subcontracts between the Santa Barbara County Water Agency and the member units.
R8b:
That the policies and procedures in Recommendation 8a be announced to the community by all member units at the same time.
R9:
That the City of Santa Barbara and the Montecito Water District continue discussions on options that could optimize the desalination facility as a regional one.
R10:
2015-16 LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE That the Carpinteria Valley Water District, as a benefiting party, rejoin and participate in the Cachuma Conservation Release Board.
R11:
That all member units include expiration dates for their water service approval documents.
R12:
That member units change their policies to begin approving new water service on the water available during a “worst case” drought year.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
No evidence could be found that a performance review of the contract was ever conducted.
F2:
4 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury PARKING CITATION PAYMENT PROBLEMS There is no option to pay in person or with cash.
F3:
Parking citations are not processed in a timely manner.
F4:
Some citations were sent to a debt collection agency even though payment was made within statutory guidelines as required by California Vehicle Code § 40207.
F5:
The most recent annual contract renewal with the vendor, CN13914, expired June 30, 2013.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office conduct regular performance reviews of the parking citation processing contract.
R2:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, in recognition of the need of some citizens to pay in cash, initiate a mechanism to pay in person or with cash.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office develop procedures to ensure parking citations are processed in a timely manner.
R4:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office develop procedures to ensure that parking citations paid within statutory timelines are not sent to debt collection agencies.
R5:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office enter into a new contract with a qualified vendor that will consistently process parking citations expeditiously.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Los Prietos Boys Camp at its current staffing level can care for up to 50 youth yet the number of juveniles held is less than this number.
F2:
No similar camp program for female juveniles exists in Santa Barbara County.
F3:
Freedom 4Youth offers a post incarceration mentorship program that is only available to youth who live in the South County.
F4:
No standard calculation methodology exists within Santa Barbara County for measuring juvenile recidivism.
F5:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Custody Operations Policy and Procedures Manual regarding the intake process needs revision.
F6:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff staff has not always confirmed arrestees were medically cleared by Corizon Health staff prior to classification and placement into the Jail population.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
(Sunset Rule) That the City of Santa Barbara City Council review at least every five years the functioning, productivity, and relevance, of all advisory groups and continue, merge, or delete their mandates.
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to conduct a study of ways to increase the utilization of the Los Prietos Boys Camp.
R1b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to reevaluate its acceptance criteria and process to develop methods to increase the number of youth who are ordered to the Los Prietos Boys Camp program.
R1c:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to evaluate the possibility of decreasing the lengths of the programs in order to accommodate more youth.
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to evaluate including female juvenile offenders in this successful program.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors encourage the establishment of a similar mentorship program for North County youth.
R4:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to establish a single calculation methodology for juvenile recidivism and utilize it in all future reporting. 90 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LOS PRIETOS BOYS CAMP
R5:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff update the Custody Operations Policy and Procedures Manual to reflect the new changes being implemented to the intake process. 112 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury SANTA BARBARA COUNTY JAIL
R6:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff initiate a procedure to ensure that all medical intake procedures are properly completed prior to classification and that inmate classification not be allowed to occur without verification of the completion of medical evaluation and clearance.
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
No evidence could be found that a performance review of the contract was ever conducted.
F2:
4 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury PARKING CITATION PAYMENT PROBLEMS There is no option to pay in person or with cash.
F3:
Parking citations are not processed in a timely manner.
F4:
Some citations were sent to a debt collection agency even though payment was made within statutory guidelines as required by California Vehicle Code § 40207.
F5:
The most recent annual contract renewal with the vendor, CN13914, expired June 30, 2013.
F6:
The Board of Directors has failed to follow its policy set forth in the Personnel Policy Manual Section XIV, Part 2 and allowed “Offensive, abusive, or persistent discourteous treatment of the public or fellow employees”. 16 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury ___________CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT__ ___
F7:
The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has no succession plan for the positions of Manager for Water/Sewer Operations or Controller.
F8:
Required annual personnel performance reviews have not been conducted in accordance with Section XXIII of the Cuyama Community Services District’s Personnel Policy Manual.
F9:
The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has not enforced its delinquent account enforcement policy, CCSD Water Policy, Article 10 - Discontinuance of Service, 1-1003, Non-payment of Bills.
F10:
That the Cuyama Community Services District will need to increase its revenues to remain financially viable.
F11:
The public needs to be informed of the need for and implementation of future water and wastewater rate increases.
F12:
That the existing telephone system does not adequately support teleconferencing.
F13:
The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors has not enforced CCSD Policy 91- 1 regarding the personal use of District owned vehicles.
F14:
The Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors does not receive any compensation.
F15:
The heavy workload for the Controller position impacts the timely completion of some required functions.
Additional Recommendations
27
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office conduct regular performance reviews of the parking citation processing contract.
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to conduct a study of ways to increase the utilization of the Los Prietos Boys Camp.
R1b:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to reevaluate its acceptance criteria and process to develop methods to increase the number of youth who are ordered to the Los Prietos Boys Camp program.
R1c:
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Probation Department to evaluate the possibility of decreasing the lengths of the programs in order to accommodate more youth.
R2:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, in recognition of the need of some citizens to pay in cash, initiate a mechanism to pay in person or with cash.
R3:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office develop procedures to ensure parking citations are processed in a timely manner.
R3a:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include the required water releases for the protection of fish habitat under the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion.
R3b:
That the new master contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency add language to include the amount of water that will be required to be released by the new Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Services when it is released.
R4:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office develop procedures to ensure that parking citations paid within statutory timelines are not sent to debt collection agencies.
R4a:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors require the existing but obsolete job description for Manager for Water/Sewer Operations be updated to include licensing requirements professional qualifications, and response time expectations, at a minimum.
R4b:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors require the existing but obsolete job description for the Controller be updated.
R5:
That the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office enter into a new contract with a qualified vendor that will consistently process parking citations expeditiously.
R5a:
That the term of the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be less than 25 years in length.
R5b:
That the new contract between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency include periodic mandatory review and revision clauses on the order of every five or six years to recalculate the “safe yield” of Lake Cachuma and to make any other necessary contract changes. 66 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury LAKE CACHUMA - PROTECTING A VALUABLE RESOURCE
R6:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors enforce Section XIV (Disciplinary Actions Against Employees) Part 2 of its Personnel Policy Manual.
R7:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors establish an orderly succession plan for the positions of Manager for Water/Sewer Operations and Controller.
R8:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors and Manager for Water/Sewer Operations conduct annual performance reviews of all employees.
R8a:
That the member units, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, create consistent policies and procedures that govern conservation efforts especially during times of a severe drought and that these are documented in the subcontracts between the Santa Barbara County Water Agency and the member units.
R8b:
That the policies and procedures in Recommendation 8a be announced to the community by all member units at the same time.
R9:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors enforce its delinquent accounts collection policy.
R10:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors implement the rate increases recommended in the October 2015 CCSD Water and Wastewater Rate Study by the Rural Community Assistance Corporation.
R11:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors initiate a public education program regarding the need for water and wastewater rate increases. 2015-16 CUYAMA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
R12:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors ensure an adequate teleconferencing system is available.
R13:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors enforce its existing policy regarding the personal use of District owned vehicles.
R14:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors consider compensating board members.
R15:
That the Cuyama Community Services District Board of Directors make more frequent use of the Relief Secretary to reduce the workload of the Controller.
R29-15:
reductions for urban water suppliers May 2015 Stage 2 Carpinteria Valley Water District Stage 3 City of Santa Barbara and Goleta Water District Sept 2015 Stage 2 Santa Ynez Water Conservation District ID No. Each stage of declared drought can mean something different at each water agency. Most drought stages set limits on outside water use. Unique among agencies enacting water use restrictions is the Montecito Water District. Rather than limiting water uses and adding a drought surcharge to water bills, which would compensate for some of the reduced revenue from decreased water use, MWD (in Ordinance 93) gave an allotment of water to each customer based on property size, enacted penalties for overuse, and added a moratorium on water service connections. Of concern to the Jury is the action taken by MWD, and the confusing message it sent to its customers with the passage of Ordinance 94, in March 2015. Ordinance 94 was enacted in response to a successful search to buy supplemental state water on the open market. In this ordinance, the MWD Board of Directors approved an increase in water allotments to their customers. This occurred just one month before the Governor of California enacted an unprecedented executive order for statewide mandatory water use reductions. Member units need to work together to send a clear message to their constituents, to reduce confusion and to emphasize the severity of the water shortages all residents are facing. Of benefit to the regional water community would be a consistent set of defined conservation 62 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office did not conduct performance reviews of the medical service provider at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office establish procedures to conduct performance reviews of the medical service provider at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
R1b:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office conduct periodic performance reviews of the medical service provider at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
F2:
Medical accreditation at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail was allowed to lapse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office establish procedures to regain and maintain medical accreditation at the Santa Barbara County Main Jail.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office has radio dead spots in the Casmalia and Tanglewood areas that threaten public safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office ensure that the radio tower scheduled to service the Casmalia and Tanglewood areas be installed as soon as possible.
F2:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office has radio dead spots in the Santa Maria Valley that threaten public safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office complete the radio tower, proposed for Mount Solomon, as soon as possible.
F3:
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Deputies in the Cuyama area are operating in a rural area with extremely poor radio communications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office join with the Santa Barbara County and Ventura County Fire Departments in the installation of a radio tower to be located in Kern County that will ensure that all agencies are able to communicate throughout the Cuyama area.
F4:
Most public safety agencies in Santa Barbara County are not using the 700 MHz radio band.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors upgrade all Santa Barbara County public safety radios to the 700 MHz band as recommended by the Federal Communications Commission and the State of California.
* 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.