Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2001-2002
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
20 findings
F1:
Regardless of non-existent time cards, whether unavailable due to inconvenience or oversight, the City is obliged to apply for and receive an accurate and honest reimbursement. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report An Investigation of the City of Capitola Redevelopment -11 Agency Reimbursement Loan Agreement
F2:
Time and performance records are currently unavailable to confirm reimbursement amounts.
F3:
The City has not applied for full reimbursement of its RDA expenses since 1995– 1996.
F4:
The Capitola City Council, by a unanimous vote on December 13, 2001, adopted a Loan Agreement to receive reimbursement from the Capitola RDA for administrative expenses.
F5:
The eligible years for reimbursement have been limited, as the City Council chose to forego the expenses and interest incurred during 1995 and 1996. This was due to concerns, conclusions and a legal opinion referencing the statute of limitations and the eligibility of the City to collect on all past expenses.
F6:
The Capitola City Attorney and General Counsel offered several legal opinions that addressed the statute of limitations and the need for documentation. Included was the statement urging the Council to be aware of: “…surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber till evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.” “That a creditor who has been especially slow in asserting its rights must not be allowed to profit by that delay.”
F7:
The method for reimbursement for the target years 1997 – 1998 through 2000 – 2001 is to be the flat fee of 15% of the adjusted net tax increment. Definition: The net tax increment equals the total of the gross tax increment revenues of the RDA, less the exempted pass through agreements of the County, Fire, Library, and Special Districts. This resulting total is the net tax increment upon which the 15% flat fee deduction for administrative expenses is calculated. After this, 20% of the original gross tax increment is deducted for the set- aside for affordable housing. A final, major deduction accounts for accumulated debt service. The following Table offers a calculated example of a 15% flat-fee administrative reimbursement amount and its erosive effect on the balance remaining for “capital projects.” The figures reported are for 2000–2001 Actual, as derived from: Redevelopment Agency — The Source & Use of Funds, Years: 2000–2004, Table 1 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report An Investigation of the City of Capitola Redevelopment -9 Agency Reimbursement Loan Agreement 2000-2001 Actual Gross Tax Increment $1,675,000 Minus the 2000-2001 Pass-Through Agreements -600,900 Total of the Net Tax Increment (NTI) = 1,074,100 15% of the N.T.I. for Flat-Fee Administrative Fee -161,115* Minus 20% of the Gross T.I. for Housing Set-Aside -335,000 Minus the listed amount of 2000-2001 Debt Service -382,200 Minus the listed amount for Professional Services -57,600 Total Example Amount Remaining for “Capital Projects” = 138,185† Reported amount spent on “Capital Projects” for 2000– 2001 zero — no entry *Example calculation only. The amount for 2000-2001 as shown in Figure 1 Exhibit A to the adopted Loan Agreement is 139,117. The difference is due to the difference between Actual and Early Calculated projections. †In this calculation, the total amount remaining for “capital projects” represented as a percentage of the Gross Tax Increment is only 8.25%.
F8:
These reimbursement amounts for 1997–2001 have been developed as a loan, with a structured amount of simple interest that currently ranges from 5% to slightly over 6%. A. Fifteen percent of this figure for the years 1997 through 2001 equals: $539,213. B. An additional $78,815 has been added to that amount for accumulated back interest. For specifics, see Exhibit A at the end of this report. C. These amounts are to be paid, “as funds are available,” as determined by the City Council, over a period “not to exceed twenty-five years.”
F9:
The original draft of the Loan Agreement stated that the amounts owed from 1997 to the present were to be considered estimates. This draft recommended the use of time cards for a two-year period in order to measure and to confirm the accuracy of the fifteen percent flat fee. (This original draft is dated: Sept. 26, 2001 as a report by senior city staff to the Oct. 11, 2001 meeting of the City Council). This provision was deleted from the adopted agreement.
F10:
In a separate and earlier report from June of 2000, General Counsel emphasized against, “…vague documentation, especially given the contractual provision that the City periodically invoice the RDA and keep accurate records of its costs.” Refer to the originating 1981 Agreement.
F11:
The current City Manager estimated the various percentages of total time allocated to the RDA by city staff. These specifics have been detailed for review by the City Council: A. A tabulation of all direct and overhead costs of the City were listed, since a portion of those expenses were deemed attributable to maintaining the offices of the RDA. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -10 An Investigation of the City of Capitola Redevelopment
F12:
All of the above information is part of the progress report; the “well documented” case, to quote the City Attorney, developed by city staff to justify two important decisions: A. To decide how the City was to obtain past reimbursement without any written records. B. To determine what percentage of the net tax increment the City could expect to adopt.
F13:
The normal range with flat-fee, percentage based reimbursements for similar agencies, as suggested by a redevelopment official, is in the range of five to fifteen percentage points, provided that it is supported by legitimate documentation.
F14:
There remains dissent within the Finance Committee regarding the use of a flat-fee reimbursement schedule instead of time cards.
F15:
A new time-keeping system for payroll purposes is being procured for all of City Hall. However, its use is not being prepared for monitoring the time and performance costs of administering the RDA.
F16:
It is the City Manager’s responsibility to provide to the City Council, a balanced budget for its approval.
F17:
The RDA is required to have its annual report audited by the City, and its annual Statement of Indebtedness approved by the County Auditor.
F18:
The County Auditor, who chose to approve the report, reviewed the 2000–2001 Statement of Indebtedness. In this instance, the auditor chose to send an annotated copy of this report to the State Finance Department for further review. The State Finance Department has the authority under state statute SB1711 to sue a redevelopment agency, but has no active monitoring system to review a Statement of Indebtedness.
F19:
The County Auditor disbursed the tax increment funds for 2000–2001 to the Capitola RDA.
F20:
The 2001–2002 Statement of Indebtedness is due for submission on September 30, covering the year inclusively through June 30th, 2002. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
In the light of past challenges to the fiscal responsibility of RDA/City officers, and in full knowledge of two separate Grand Jury reports directly recommending time card reporting, and in acknowledgement of the City’s previous agreement to do so, the City should look to, and proceed with, implementing procedures that build the trust and confidence of the public.
R2:
The City Council should reconsider its actions, revisit the advice of its City Attorney and that of other paid counsel, and develop the systems necessary to carefully monitor and report the actual expenses incurred on behalf of its RDA. It is further suggested that this resulting system be applied to confirm the accuracy of requested reimbursement amounts relating to 1997–2001.
R3:
The City Council should not accept a City budget that relies on inappropriate contributions from its Redevelopment Agency.
R4:
The Grand Jury of 2001–2002 further recommends to the Grand Jury of 2002–2003 that it reinvestigate and specifically check the content of the City’s work on behalf of the RDA to ascertain if the value in dollars reimbursed under the present Loan Agreement is equal to the cost. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -12 An Investigation of the City of Capitola Redevelopment
R12-00:
online edition, www.santacruzsentinel.com. C. The redevelopment report of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury, 1993–1994 D. References from: www.redevelopment.com/g_jury/juryb.htm E. City of Capitola documents: • Capitola Redevelopment Budget extract: Source & Use of Funds, 2000–2004 • Loan Agreement, dated 12-13-01, including attachments Exhibit A (shown in Figure 1), and Attachment 1 • City Council Meeting of December 13, 2001, including attachments: Staff report for the October 11, 2001 meeting, Minutes of the October 11, 2001 meeting, and a spreadsheet detailing the 15% proposal • Background report by City Manager to the Finance Committee regarding the RDA reimbursement of City Expenditures, dated: September 20, 2001. Includes: 1. Analysis of Time Records submitted by: • City Manager for the period of March 8 to April 11, 2001 • Community Development Director for the period of the First Quarter of Year 2000. • Housing and Redevelopment Director for the period of March 2000 through February 2001 2. Direct and Overhead Costs Calculations of: • City Wide Overhead Calculations. • Cost Percentage Iterations for Capitola and Santa Cruz County Housing Expenses to Revenues listing. 3. Attorney Opinions submitted by: • Capitola General Counsel, dated 09-17-01 • Capitola City Attorney, dated 08-29-01 • Capitola General Counsel/City Attorney, dated 06-16-00 • Attorney for Goldfarb & Lipman, SF, dated 08-10-01 • Attorney for Goldfarb & Lipman, SF, dated 08-27-01
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
89 findings
F1:
Table 2 illustrates that having ten school districts in the county creates a duplication of administrative functions. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report A Review of the Structure and Administration -3 of the Santa Cruz County Public School Systems Administrative Functions Matrix COE PVUSD SC SV SLV SOQ LO (4) One- School Districts Superintendent X X X X X X X X Assistant Superintendent X X X X X X X
F2:
Table 3 details the cost per student in each of the school districts in Santa Cruz County. Cost Per Student Comparison
F3:
Santa Cruz County school administrators agree that all of the school districts are concerned about the effects of declining enrollment.
F4:
Santa Cruz School District lost 720 students in 2000/2001.
F5:
Bonny Doon School District lost 112 students over five years.
F6:
Soquel School District lost 140 students over five years.
F7:
Administrators at Live Oak, Pacific and San Lorenzo Valley state that they have all experienced declining enrollment.
F8:
Many schools that have not shown a drop in enrollment have zero growth.
F9:
According to the State Franchise Tax Board, Santa Cruz County will lose an additional 2,200 students by the year 2010. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report A Review of the Structure and Administration -5 of the Santa Cruz County Public School Systems
F10:
Some northern classrooms have empty desks while many southern classrooms experience overcrowding. Deficits
F11:
Most school districts are experiencing financial difficulties. Studies suggest that by the year 2010, Santa Cruz County public schools will lose approximately $21,455,390 due to a drop in Average Daily Attendance (ADA).
F12:
Additional funds are available from the State as incentives for more efficiently organized districts. Based upon today's figures the incentives are $20 per student, which equates to approximately $800,000 potentially available to County schools.
F13:
School districts in Santa Cruz County do not employ professional project managers to oversee major building renovation projects. This exposes the districts to cost overruns and waste. Special Education Programs
F14:
Special Education Programs are Federally and State mandated but many are only partially funded. These programs are extremely expensive and impose a severe financial burden on the entire education system.
F15:
The special education program in Santa Cruz County has two administrative staffs. Pajaro Valley Unified School District runs its own Special Education Local Program Administration (SELPA) program. The COE and the other nine school districts are in a consortium called Northern County SELPA.
F16:
The County of Santa Cruz receives approximately $22 million dollars annually for special education funding. 40% of this funding comes from federal sources and 60% from state revenues.
F17:
The COE administers the north county SELPA and serves as a conduit for special education funds from the state to the school districts.
F18:
Districts utilizing special education services provided by the COE are charged for additional “excess cost.”
F19:
The funds for the consortium in the northern county area are approximately $11 million annually. The COE retains 50% to cover the cost of programs they provide (including 61 special education teachers’ salaries) and the remaining funds are distributed to the consortium members. If there are excess costs for the program, the school districts may have to reimburse the COE for participating in the program.
F20:
Pajaro Unified School District has its own SELPA in the southern county area and is funded directly from the state, thereby eliminating additional administrative costs. Grant Money
F21:
Each individual district must procure federal, state and private grant money in its own behalf.
F22:
Preparing grant documents is costly and time consuming. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -6 A Review of the Structure and Administration of the Santa Cruz County Public School Systems
F23:
While there are ten school districts in the County, a cooperative grant application system does not exist.
F24:
The COE does not regularly prepare grant applications for individual school districts.
F25:
The criteria for many federal, state and private grant monies are family income levels (based on federal guidelines) within the district, and/or the number of non-English speaking students.
F26:
Many of the county school districts do not meet the criteria of family income level or non-English speaking students to qualify for grants.
F27:
The data indicate the southeastern portion of the county has a larger percent of lower- income families and non-English speaking students, which qualifies Pajaro Valley Unified School District for a larger number of grants. County Office of Education
F28:
In 1861 D.J. Haslam served as the first Superintendent of Santa Cruz County schools, supervising twenty-one schools, 1,756 students and a budget of $6,344.
F29:
Until 1890 the County Superintendent was a part-time employee. Today the County Office of Education has a budget of $34,097,978 and employs 286 persons supporting 40,000 students.
F30:
The County Office of Education currently consists of: • 37 Administrators • 61 Special Education Teachers • 49 Vocational Teacher • 55 Classroom aides • 10 Student support – therapists, work experience teachers • 24 Administrator assistants – secretaries • 40 Clerical • 5 Technology support staff • 5 Maintenance staff
F31:
The mission statement of the COE states: "The County Superintendent of Schools is to oversee and further the progress of education in all school districts within the County and serve as an intermediate link between those local districts and the State Department of Education."
F32:
The County Superintendent has the responsibility of providing those services that can be more economically and efficiently provided by a central office rather than an individual local school district.
F33:
The COE generally does not offer services that compete with the districts, or impose programs or laws.
F34:
Four of the state-mandated functions of the COE are: • Information and coordination services 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report A Review of the Structure and Administration -7 of the Santa Cruz County Public School Systems • Program and staff development services • Fiscal oversight of the County's school districts. • Registration of teaching credentials for teachers who teach within Santa Cruz County
F35:
The four one-school districts in the County receive financial and accounting assistance from the COE for which they are not billed.
F36:
Funding for the COE is divided into two categories: 85% is restricted to special education, vocational education and schools at detention facilities. The funding is partially based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA, the amount per student funded by the State to the schools). The remaining 15% covers administrative costs.
F37:
The COE bills districts utilizing programs administered by the COE for excess costs.
F38:
The COE has the primary responsibility of reviewing the yearly audits of the school districts’ budgets.
F39:
All school and district payrolls pass through the COE, which also passes along an administrative charge to the school districts.
F40:
As of April 1st 2002, the county wide declining enrollment dilemma has not resulted in budget or staff reductions at the COE. One-School Districts
F41:
These four one-school districts have a total student enrollment of 540: • Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District • Founded 1940. 170 students. • One school K-6. • Happy Valley Elementary School District • Founded 1864. 130 students. • One school K-6. • Mountain Elementary School District • Founded 1869. 158 students. • One school K-6 • Pacific Elementary School District • Founded 1906. 82 students. • One school K-6 • Yearly budget (combined): $4,660,810 • Total Number of Employees (combined): 122
F42:
Each district is a self-contained business entity, i.e., it includes hiring, budgeting, employee contract, curriculum and fund raising functions.
F43:
The Principal has the dual role of District Superintendent and School Administrator.
F44:
Since family income levels are generally above federal guidelines in these districts, very little grant money is available. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -8 A Review of the Structure and Administration of the Santa Cruz County Public School Systems
F45:
Due to the cost of special education programs, a very serious financial threat is posed to these small districts. If a student needs an aide or a tutor with him/her or if the student needs education outside of the district, the district must pay for it.
F46:
Test scores in these one-school districts lead the county, but the cost per student is much higher than the other six county school districts.
F47:
An Administrator stated, “Parental involvement and a dedicated, committed staff are a key component to the success of the district."
F48:
Families are moving from the area, one of the least affordable in the nation, due to the high cost of housing.
F49:
Declining enrollment severely impacts small districts. A family with any children leaving the school district poses a serious financial loss due to the loss of payment for ADA for that student. Six Multi-School Districts
F50:
The six multi-school districts range from 1,994 to 19,863 students.
F51:
Each District Office operates as an individual business entity.
F52:
Staff in each District Office consists of Administrative, Human Resources, Purchasing, Facilities, Food Service, Curriculum, and Staff Development personnel.
F53:
Each district negotiates its own union contacts.
F54:
The ten school districts set policy and administration for all schools within their jurisdiction.
F55:
Boundaries of school districts make it difficult for teachers and students to transfer between districts where declining enrollment is severely impacting a district’s financial viability.
F56:
With the multi-school districts in the North County, students from one family may attend K-6 in one district, middle school in another and high school in yet a third. This creates a lack of uniformity in the curriculum, transportation and family vacation schedules. Live Oak School District
F57:
Live Oak School District, surrounded by the Soquel and Santa Cruz school districts, has housing that is increasingly out of the reach of many working families. Consequently the Live Oak School District is experiencing declining enrollment.
F58:
Live Oak will face budget deficits within two years unless costs in the school district are lowered; additional funding is acquired or transfers of students from other districts are achieved.
F59:
The district has been proactive in addressing their budget issues by doing the following in an effort to attract more students: • Opened day care to all residents in the community • Opened a community center • Formed a parent/teacher committee to examine budget and declining enrollment issues. • Are preparing to open a magnet school (a school which emphasizes a specific area of study) and plan to enroll students who live anywhere in Santa Cruz County who are interested in that subject. Soquel Union Elementary School District
F60:
Soquel suffers from declining student enrollment with approximately 140 students lost over the last five years.
F61:
Lack of affordable housing and the high cost of special education severely impact this district. District Administrators expect budget deficits in the future.
F62:
Family income levels tend to be above federal guidelines that make it very difficult for the district to qualify for grants.
F63:
Administrators state that the cost of preparing grant applications greatly reduces the net amount funded to the district. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -10 A Review of the Structure and Administration of the Santa Cruz County Public School Systems Scotts Valley Unified School District
F64:
Scotts Valley High School was opened on September 3rd 1999. This increased the total enrollment for the school district. However, by doing so other districts lost enrollment.
F65:
Declining enrollment has not impacted the district, but the Scotts Valley district does not anticipate future growth.
F66:
The district is in the process of remodeling its middle school campus.
F67:
On November 8, 1994 voters approved two bond measure totaling $22.7 million for a new high school.
F68:
On May 1, 1995, $4.5 million was released with the remaining $18.2 million released on August 1st 1997.
F69:
Voters rejected additional school bonds for the district in March 2002. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District
F70:
San Lorenzo Valley School District is located in the mountainous region of Santa Cruz County.
F71:
The district faces numerous challenges with transportation and declining enrollment. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report A Review of the Structure and Administration -11 of the Santa Cruz County Public School Systems
F72:
While district buses operate daily during school hours, late after-school activities pose a problem.
F73:
Missing scheduled morning pick-ups and return trips home often discourages students from attending school or participating in after school activities.
F74:
School officials feel free bus passes for public transportation would help daily attendance.
F75:
At the close of fieldwork, the Superintendent stated the budget would have a deficit in the 2002-2003 school year. Santa Cruz City School District
F76:
The district has lost approximately 720 students since 1999. 322 students were lost during the 2001 school year alone.
F77:
In order to remain solvent, the district must reduce its budget by $3.2 to $4.9 million dependent on receiving additional funding.
F78:
A parcel tax measure was recently passed. According to district officials, these amounts will not be sufficient to cover growing deficits.
F79:
In 1998, voters approved bond measures totaling $86 million designated for school remodeling.
F80:
The District has been in the processing of renovating older school buildings in order to bring them into compliance with federal mandates. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -12 A Review of the Structure and Administration of the Santa Cruz County Public School Systems
F81:
The district recently announced that Strategic Construction Management Consulting Company would receive $1.2 million to oversee these renovations.
F82:
Recently two high school principals resigned their positions citing the high cost of housing, declining enrollment, and budget concerns. One principal was quoted as saying; “I’ve been having to make budget decisions that honestly are difficult for me to deal with, reducing people’s work day, their work year. Unfortunately this is the beginning of a cycle that is not going to go away for a while.”
F83:
Many students from the Santa Cruz City School District were transferred to Scotts Valley High School, which opened in 1999. This negatively impacted the school district’s ADA. Pajaro Valley Unified School District
F84:
Pajaro Valley Unified School District is the largest school district in the County.
F85:
The migrant population and other non-English speaking students create unique expenses and challenges for PVUSD.
F86:
According to State of California statistics, thirteen schools in the district have unacceptably low-test scores.
F87:
The District is continuously initiating programs to reverse low academic achievement.
F88:
Overcrowding at the high schools is a major concern.
F89:
A new high school is scheduled to open in approximately two years. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The ten school districts within the County of Santa Cruz should be combined into one Consolidated School District. The Grand Jury urges the County Board of Education and the County Office of Education to immediately initiate the process for consolidation outlined in the California Education Code.
R2:
The County Board of Education and the County Office of Education should empanel a Citizens’ Committee to oversee Recommendation Number One. This committee should consist of members from the following groups: • Educators • Business Professionals • Union Representatives • Concerned citizens
R3:
The County Board of Education and the County Office of Education should obtain the services of an outside and independent senior level business executive to assist in a comprehensive review of the structure and administration of the County Office of Education and every school district.
R4:
The County Board of Education, the County Office of Education and Pajaro Valley Unified School District should examine and streamline the administration of the SELPA programs.
R5:
In order to address declining enrollment in north county schools, the County Board of Education and the County Office of Education should immediately authorize a study focused on alleviating overcrowding in south county classrooms.
R6:
The Santa Cruz City School District should retain on staff a professional project manager to oversee the refurbishing of their school buildings. This project manager should have a proven and verifiable track record in this industry. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report A Review of the Structure and Administration -15 of the Santa Cruz County Public School Systems Response Required Entity
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The cost of an annual audit for some small entities is a financial burden.
F2:
The law allows for less frequent audits for smaller entities.
F3:
There is a perception among special districts that there is a lack of choice in Certified Public Accountant (CPA) firms willing to audit special districts in Santa Cruz County.
F4:
Guidelines for the audit of special districts state that cost should not be the sole factor in choosing an auditor.
F5:
The responses of some local government entities to the Grand Jury’s survey of procedures followed in the selection of an auditor leaves the appearance that they use price as the sole criterion for selecting an auditor.
F6:
Other than school districts, most special districts in Santa Cruz County use one of two auditing firms among the several available choices.
F7:
Many small firms decline to do local school and government audits because of the special requirements of these audits.
F8:
There is no legal requirement to change auditors.
F9:
Many financial professionals believe a periodic change of auditor should be a requirement in order to ensure the independence of the audit.
F10:
Most special districts do not have a term limit policy for changing auditors. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The retention of an auditor should be reviewed at least every 3 years and changed at least every 6 years.
R2:
The County Auditor/Controller should develop and publish guidelines for: A. Frequency of audit for special districts for which an annual audit is a financial burden; and B. Alternate safeguards in lieu of an annual audit for entities for which a formal audit is not warranted. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -4 Grand Jury Review of Periodic Audits of
R3:
The Auditor/Controller should take an active role in encouraging competition among audit firms by: A. Facilitating joint solicitations for audit services; (same comment) B. Soliciting more CPA firms to do business in Santa Cruz County; and C. Apprising Special Districts of their auditing choices. Response Required Entity
R4:
The County Auditor/Controller should create and publish a report describing expenses the County incurs for supporting other entities for which the County is not reimbursed, in order to get an accurate picture of the real cost of the services provided by these entities.
R5:
Each city should create a report detailing expenses it incurs for supporting other entities such as joint ventures and redevelopment agencies for which the city is not reimbursed, in order to gain an adequate picture of the real costs of these entities.
R6:
Local government entities should include in their annual budgets a summary of services provided to them by other local government entities without reimbursement in order to reflect better the actual costs of their programs. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -8 Grand Jury Review of Periodic Audits of
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
No evidence of impropriety was found. Principals from both sides of the dispute, their attorneys and attorneys from the California Attorney Generals Office and the State Lands Commission did meet in closed sessions to express their relative positions in the dispute in anticipation of litigation – permitted under the Brown Act – but, as stipulated by the Act, no ‘actions’ meaning in this case, settlements or decisions as to the outcome were made. Rather, the participants were emphatic in expressing no settlement could be enacted without the legally mandated involvement and consent of the public. Allegation 2 Participation in, condoning, or failing to properly contest improper or illegal transfer of title to public lands (the disputed parcel).
F2:
The case is extremely complex. Neither side is in a position of clear superiority. Neither side knows what compelling facts or rebuttals the other may or may not have. Litigation presents great cost, uncertainty and risk – if the matter is litigated, the winner will get everything, the loser nothing, hence, although it is an option, neither side wants to litigate. Both sides feel the wiser course is to find one or more win-win options.
F3:
However, because the possibility of litigation does exist, neither side wishes to get into open discussions where someone might even inadvertently, reveal ‘the cards it holds’. The City Council is almost in a no-win position; they do not want the citizens to feel deceived by not outlining their case publicly, but they do not want to risk losing by having something unintentionally disclosed. Meanwhile, the Seaside Company is under no obligation to discuss anything publicly, even if the Council were to do so. Page 3-2 Investigation of the Conduct of the Santa Cruz City Council in the Public Trust Tidelands/Third Street Parking Lot Dispute 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Allegation 3 Suppression of information (a report of findings pertinent to the dispute, produced by a consultant paid with public funds) that should legally be public.
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
A Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan of a city or county or a city and county including the County of Santa Cruz.
F2:
California law requires that the Housing Element (plan) of each county be certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as meeting legal requirements. Failure to comply results in Santa Cruz County being ineligible to apply for millions of dollars per year in State funding. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) divides households into four income groups: high, moderate, low and very low. The State of California also divides households into four groups, using slightly different terminology: high, low/moderate, very low and extremely low. Both use the same numerical income ranges. A self-sufficiency wage is the amount needed to maintain bare functional necessities: shelter, food, essential transportation, essential medical care, and non-discretionary incidental expenses. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Investigation of the Lack of Affordable Housing -17 in Santa Cruz County
F3:
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, as the responsible executives of the County, with full knowledge and understanding are, and for a number of years, have been out of compliance with California and Santa Cruz County housing laws.7,8 Even in the face of repeated memos from high level County officials advising the Supervisors of same and recommending corrective actions, they failed to vote as a majority to bring the County into compliance.
F4:
Many employed individuals and families in the very low-income category live in condemned structures, abandoned vehicles, sheds, storage bins and camps for the homeless. They endure living with unacceptable health and safety violations: without plumbing, without sanitary facilities, without electricity, without heat and with infestations of vermin. A quoted response from the 2001 Farmworker Housing and Health Survey: “...some people were living in a hotel room with one bedroom, a small bathroom, kitchen...there were eight people there...they were in wretched conditions, dead cockroaches, rats, and the roof in bad condition.”
F5:
The crisis is not limited just to those with very low incomes. The drastic rise in the cost of housing, and the lack of remedial action, has forced an exodus of people in the public and private sectors with essential skills and an inability to attract replacements. Included are medical providers, educators, law enforcement and firefighting personnel, other professionals and service workers, all of whom are vital to a healthy community. Also, many of the professional and highly skilled individuals have accepted higher salaries in nearby counties, but continue to occupy their Santa Cruz County residences, thus increasing the problem.
F6:
One Supervisor produced an affordable housing proposal to help public employees only. Although not adopted, the proposed remedy was to provide public employees with (a), preferential treatment in affordable housing opportunities and (b), financial assistance using County funds. Santa Cruz County Code 17.10.100 describes this practice as an illegal Conflict of Interest.
F7:
The ongoing failure of the County Supervisors to take actions that would result in meeting affordable housing laws has resulted in Santa Cruz County being ineligible to apply for millions of dollars per year in State funding for:9 A. Acquisition, development, rehabilitation and financing of rental or ownership housing for low-income families. B. Assistance for first time homebuyers. C. Infrastructure improvements, community facilities and some community services. California Government Code 65580 et seq., and Santa Cruz County Codes, Chapter 17.10, et seq. Housing Element Compliance Report, State of California Dept of Housing and Community Development, dated February 1, 2002, , Santa Cruz County. www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/plan/he/status.htm 9 Board of Supervisors Meeting, agenda item 65, October 19, 1999. Letter from the Director, Santa Cruz County Planning Department and the County Administrative Officer to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, dated October 19, 1999. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -18 Investigation of the Lack of Affordable Housing in Santa Cruz County D. Business attraction, retention and revitalization activities. E. Capitalization of a loan fund for local businesses for working capital, revolving lines of credit, equipment renovation and other. F. Economic development and related infrastructure improvements.
F8:
When questioned in public debates about the loss of these funds, high-level County officials have asserted that no loss of funds has occurred because such funds can, and have been obtained by non-profit organizations and that grants of such funds could not be received by both non-profits and the County. A closer examination of the facts revealed these assertions to be misleading.
F9:
The number of primary and 2nd or vacation homes created for moderate income (fewer than 15% of County households) and high income has been disproportionate to the economic ratio of those in need. In parallel, according to County documents and the testimony of County housing officials, the number of affordable dwelling units has actually been declining. Among the reasons for the decline: A. Builders are permitted to demolish affordable dwelling units and replace them with larger, market rate homes. B. Construction of expensive single-family dwellings is being permitted in areas zoned for affordable multifamily dwellings C. The number of dwelling units carrying time limited affordable deed restrictions by agreement with landlords is shrinking.10 The agreements are expiring at a higher rate than they are being replaced. D. Funding mandated for affordable housing is being excessively used on rehabilitation of existing dwelling units, instead of being used to increase the overall number of dwelling units.
F10:
Affordable housing has not been attractive to developers and realtors. Given the ample opportunities to build and sell very expensive homes, there have been no economic incentives to consider affordable housing.
F11:
There is a widely communicated misconception – touted by those who advocate it – that encourages the false belief that meeting legal requirements for affordable housing mandates high rise developments and/or unacceptable growth.11 The law requires neither. It merely says if a county or city plans to increase (or decrease) the number of dwelling units, the housing element must address the needs of all income segments of the community and cannot unfairly favor certain income groups at the expense of others.
F12:
According to the findings of experts with detailed knowledge of the County and all the constraints therein, there are numerous options for relieving the affordable housing situation and substantially bringing the Plan into compliance) These can be achieved 10 Landlords are subsidized for the difference between the affordable rate and the prevailing market rate. The Mid County Post, May 7- 20, 2002, “New Housing Policies Could Bring Crowding," and “Your Neighborhood Might Be Next,” by Jan Beautz, Santa Cruz County Supervisor. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Investigation of the Lack of Affordable Housing -19 in Santa Cruz County without compromising essential health and safety requirements, environmental or coastal protections, agricultural lands or services important to the quality of life. These options, sometimes individually, sometimes collectively, have been proposed to the Supervisors on many occasions but no action has been taken. Instead, the Supervisors, while publicly voicing support for affordable housing, have instead, directed further studies, directed additional analysis, requested additional reports, directed economic modeling, directed exploration of possibilities and routinely deferred considerations to future dates – often repeatedly – until they eventually failed to appear on subsequent agendas. In contrast, a number of housing officials within the County commended the City of Watsonville for conscientiously addressing their affordable housing needs and obligations.
F13:
Housing projects, which violated affordable housing laws, have been approved by the County Supervisors. County law (“Measure J”) requires 15% of new residential developments to be affordable or, satisfy one of several alternative options such as ‘in- lieu’ fees, or transfer credits based on the value of property or dwellings in the development (County Code Section 17.10.034) These fees or other options accrue for the creation of affordable housing. The minimum in-lieu fee, as shown in the Code, is $160,000. Examples of violations found by the Grand Jury are Tan Heights at 13% and Calabria Heights at 10%.
F14:
According to the testimony of more than three local housing officials within Santa Cruz County, urban services boundaries12 in the County have historically been determined by anti-growth actions directed by elected officials rather than based on suitability of location for housing development.
F15:
The root of many County problems can be traced to the lack of affordable housing: A. Many workers are forced to commute long distances, often two hours or more. Typically those who must make the longest commutes to more affordable places are those who can least afford to those with lowest incomes. This puts additional traffic on already badly deteriorated roads, but Community Development Block Grant funding from the State that would help the situation has been denied, due to the Supervisors’ decision not to comply with affordable housing laws. B. A shortage of employees is hurting businesses and public agencies. Both have experienced an outflow of people and fruitless recruiting programs because the ratio of income to housing affordability is better elsewhere. C. Strained sanitary facilities of public buildings and local businesses, because unemployed and working homeless people living in vehicles or moving from one temporary shelter to another are forced to use them. D. Health and Safety Code violations. According to testimony by a County employee, inspectors are overloaded with work in this area and illegally built living quarters of various kinds.
F16:
The lack of affordable housing for low-income individuals is having a particularly serious impact on low-income individuals receiving treatment for mental illness, 12 Municipal water, sewers, transportation and other services are typically available only within urban service areas. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -20 Investigation of the Lack of Affordable Housing in Santa Cruz County substance abuse and other problems and on their caregivers as well. Because these patients have no fixed address or telephone, it is a serious concern to physicians and other caregivers who cannot locate and maintain necessary contact with their patients to monitor efficacy of treatment and progress.
F17:
As stated in this Grand Jury report on County schools, nearly all of the schools in the County have experienced a decline in enrollment, and a resultant loss of State funds. County educators interviewed by the Grand Jury have pointed directly to the lack of affordable housing as the reason.
F18:
A number of County officials have testified that the University of California, Santa Cruz has not provided its ‘fair share’ of on-campus housing.
F19:
The director of housing for the University of California, Santa Cruz, reports UCSC provides the largest percentage of on-campus housing within the University of California system. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Supervisors should implement the options identified in the Affordable Housing Action Plan13 authored by the County Administrative Officer, the County Planning Director and the County Redevelopment Director and submitted to the Board of Supervisors in November 2001. This would significantly help to bring the Housing Element into compliance with California and Santa Cruz County laws now, and in the future.
R2:
The County Supervisors should immediately publish and prominently publicize, a clear disclosure of: A. The facts regarding affordable housing laws. B. The facts regarding a competently formulated housing element. C. The facts regarding the consequences of failing to do so. The Supervisors should then responsibly serve the citizens by mandating that such a housing element is executed and administered on the basis of need, fairness and compliance with the law.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that complaint, pursuant to Section 65587 (a), (b) and (c) in their entirety, be filed with the Court by the Santa Cruz County District Attorney, or the State Attorney General by request of the County District Attorney, and/or by other interested parties as a class action, to ensure the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors breaks with their history of willfully failing to comply with duties and obligations required of them by law. California Government Code, Section 65587 provides: (a) “Each city, county, or city and county shall bring its housing element, as required by subdivision (c) of Section 65302, into conformity with the requirements of this article on or before October 1, 198114, and the deadlines set by Section 65588.15 Except as specifically provided in subdivision (b) of Section 65361, the Director of Planning and Research shall not grant an extension of time from these requirements.” 13 Board of Supervisors Meeting, agenda item 63, November 6, 2001. http://sccounty01.co.santacruz.ca.us/bds/board/20011106/20011106.htm 14 In 1981 California housing law was amended to include mandated schedules for housing elements. Every five years the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the agency responsible for certifying housing law compliance, formulates, and then negotiates housing objectives with each metropolitan area in the State. Each area is subsequently assigned a numerical housing objective that is then apportioned to local government jurisdictions within that area. During the ensuing five years, each jurisdiction must carry out actions toward achieving its compliance objectives and HCD conducts annual reviews of those actions and their success relative to compliance. Since at least 1994, Santa Cruz County has failed to comply. Sec. 65588 includes ‘grandfather’ provisions for housing elements compliant with the prior (1977) housing law requirements and whose five- year cycles had not expired by 1981. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -22 Investigation of the Lack of Affordable Housing in Santa Cruz County (b) “Any action brought by any interested party to review the conformity with the provisions of this article of any housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the court's review of compliance with the provisions of this article shall extend to whether the housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto substantially complies with the requirements of this article.” (c) “If a court finds that an action of a city, county, or city and county, which is required to be consistent with its general plan, does not comply with its housing element, the city, county, or city and county shall bring its action into compliance within 60 days. However, the court shall retain jurisdiction throughout the period for compliance to enforce its decision. Upon the court's determination that the 60-day period for compliance would place an undue hardship on the city, county, or city and county, the court may extend the time period for compliance by an additional 60 days.”
R4:
The County should retain a community planning firm with excellent credentials to work with the appropriate County entities to optimize the Affordable Housing Action Plan above, and produce additional creative solutions for the Housing Element to improve the quality of life in the County as a whole. If linked with cooperative efforts of the local cities, these actions can bring even greater benefits.
R5:
The supply of UC Santa Cruz on-campus student housing is inadequate to meet demand and is imposing an additional burden on an already critical situation. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the Santa Cruz City Council should employ every reasonable means to induce UCSC to move forcefully in two areas: A. Do more to build its fair share of student housing B. Limit the student population to accurately reflect the current housing situation
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
An elected five-member Board of Directors of the Salsipuedes Sanitary District is responsible for budgets, employee issues, and long-term decisions. The board meets monthly, and each board member is paid $100 per month, contingent upon attendance of this meeting.
F2:
The District Manager takes care of other decisions and day-to-day coordination of work. The District Manager also serves as the secretary to the Board of Directors.
F3:
The district has two part time non-benefited employees and makes use of contract personnel for all other work. By comparison, the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District employs approximately fifty people: ten in the engineering department and the remainder in the operations department.
F4:
The District has technical people available on call to respond to emergencies that may arise. -2 Investigation of the Salsipuedes Sanitary District
F5:
The Salsipuedes Sanitary District charges its customers through an assessment collected concurrently with their property tax bills.
F6:
The District Manager has recommended for the coming fiscal year that the District maintain the lower fees established last year on a single-year temporary basis.
F7:
The District’s costs and charges are low in comparison with other districts offering comparable services.
F8:
The Salsipuedes Sanitary District passes along charges for individual efforts (e.g., from the District’s engineer or attorney) to the individual customer for whom the charge was incurred. The District offers the rationale that such charges are only incurred due to a customer’s specific need.
F9:
Correspondence prepared and signed by the attorney for the District is sometimes mailed out on behalf of the Salsipuedes Sanitary District.
F10:
In performing an inspection, the Salsipuedes Sanitary District does not assume responsibility for the correct and complete installation performed on the building sewer (i.e., the plumbing on the customer’s property). Rather, the District does what it feels is necessary to ensure the safe installation or modification of the customer’s tie- in to the sanitary system.
F11:
Customers connecting to the District are required to obtain a Santa Cruz County encroachment permit, which allows for breaking into the county sidewalks and road, if necessary. This permit is required even though it may not ultimately prove necessary to perform these operations.
F12:
Salsipuedes Sanitary District procedures state that, “all work performed in relation to and for connection to the District sewer system requires a specific permit in accordance with the District rules and regulations3.”
F13:
According to District officials, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department does not dependably notify customers of the need to obtain multiple permits. The District also reports that in cases where a sewage connection will clearly be required, the Planning Department does not consistently identify the need for a permit to be obtained from the Salsipuedes Sanitary District. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Planning Department should establish a system and conduct employee training to identify instances that require an additional permit. Customers should be notified of this requirement when obtaining other required permits.
R2:
The attorney being used by the Salsipuedes Sanitary District is not an employee and should cease issuing formal correspondence from the District to its customers.
R3:
Correspondence prepared and signed by the attorney for the Salsipuedes Sanitary District should never be mailed out on behalf of the District. All correspondence should be signed by the board or by the District Manager. Response Required Entity
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Cuts in reimbursements to residential care facilities by the state and federal governments have resulted in unnecessary placement of elderly people in nursing homes.
F2:
There are thirty-one residential care facilities in the county with a total bed capacity of 1141; only fifty-two of these beds accept people receiving SSI if they are not already assigned. The average cost per person, per month is $1000-$3000 and SSI pays $800- $850 per month.
F3:
Due to the lack of residential care facilities in Santa Cruz County, some poor residents who are discharged from the hospital and are unable to remain at home in order to avoid nursing home placement, must go to Santa Clara County for residential care needs. Adult Protective Services and hospital discharge planners have assisted some Santa Cruz County residents to take this route.
F4:
Inadequate cost of living adjustments in Santa Cruz County to keep in line with the increased costs of housing, services and supplies, prevents agencies such as the Multipurpose Senior Services Program from moving people out of nursing homes and back into the community.
F5:
Many elderly and disabled people who are in nursing homes could manage better in an alternative setting.
F6:
Thirty percent of home health care agencies nationwide have gone out of business due to cuts in reimbursement payments by the state and federal governments. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report Long Term Care for Seniors -9
F7:
The County Board of Supervisors governs a Public Authority for In-Home Support Services. The Public Authority has a computer system in place to provide registry for caregivers and to establish standards for care.
F8:
The wages for caregivers for elderly people is inadequate, since caregivers are usually paid minimum wage. The Public Authority has been successful in increasing the caregivers’ minimum wage to $8.50 per hour, which is a step toward solving the problems of staff shortages and poor quality of care. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should support efforts by county service agencies to lobby state officials to support less costly alternatives to nursing homes that enable older adults to remain at home or in their communities.
R2:
The county should apply for federal low-cost housing assistance for construction of residential care facilities under the Department Housing and Urban Development in order to expand the number of residential care beds available to recipients of SSI.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should make every effort to convince federal and state officials that higher rates of reimbursement be authorized for residential care for low- income elders.
R4:
In order to recruit and retain caregivers of LTC services and meet their basic needs, the County Board of Supervisors should support efforts to obtain reasonable wage/benefit packages for this important workforce.
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should continue to support funding and efforts to purchase property for the Elderday Pajaro Valley facility. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -10 Long Term Care for Seniors Response Required Entity
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
The California Association of Probation Institution Administrators (CAPIA) describes the mission of the juvenile detention system: "...To build and support a Juvenile Detention System which utilizes the assessment of risk, eliminates unnecessary detention of youth, provides a safe and humane institutional environment for those residents in detention, develops a professional child supervision staff who recognize and respect the dignity of residents, and demonstrates a level of care which serves as a model to other states and jurisdictions."
F2:
The facility itself makes use of the California System of Care, which was brought into existence by the Children’s Mental Health Services Act. According to materials provided by the facility, the System of Care has the following essential values: A. Family preservation – children shall be maintained in their homes with their families whenever possible. B. Least restrictive setting – when out-of-home placement is necessary, children must be placed in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their needs. C. Natural setting – children benefit most from mental health services provided in their natural environments, where they live and learn. These include home, school, foster home or a juvenile detention center. D. Interagency collaboration and coordinated service delivery system – the primary child serving agencies shall collaborate at the policy management and service levels to provide a coordinated goal directed system of care for seriously emotionally disturbed children and their families. E. Family involvement – family participation is an integral part of assessment, evaluation, intervention and treatment. F. Cultural competence – service effectiveness is dependent upon both culturally relevant and competent service deliveries.
F3:
The Juvenile Hall web site (http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/prb/org/juvenil.html) also provides the following summary of the beliefs of the facility’s management and staff: A. Youth not needing secure detention should be provided less restrictive alternatives to incarceration. B. Youth have the ability to make positive changes. C. Youth have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. D. Youth deserve fair and consistent discipline and a safe and humane environment. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report Report on the Juvenile Hall -31 E. Youth need institutional programs and services which foster physical, moral, emotional, and intellectual growth. F. Youth need positive role models. G. Institutional staff are our most valuable resource.
F4:
The Juvenile Hall offers the following: • Volunteers • Barrios Unidos • Narcotics Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous, and Alateen • Planned Parenthood • Mentoring / Job Readiness Program • Religious Programs • Community Speakers • Educational (After School) Programs • Young Men as Fathers • Case Planning.
F5:
Juvenile Hall offers these Detention Alternatives: • Home Supervision / Intensive Home Supervision / Electronic Monitoring • Weekend Work Program • Youth Community Restoration Program (Y-CORP).
F6:
When a juvenile is held beyond ten days, a “needs assessment” is performed by a Probation Aide (to determine the level of service or detention that is most appropriate, given the needs of the three stakeholders involved: the victim, the community, and the offender). Services may include mental health counseling, substance abuse counseling, anger management sessions, or victim awareness training. Also available are “Life Skills,” job development, and pre-placement programs.
F7:
Inmates stay in the facility for an average of 8.9 days.
F8:
The facility recognizes and addresses a continuum of issues including educational assessment, continuing alternative education, probation issues, substance abuse counseling and mental health.
F9:
A doctor and/or nurse is available to incarcerated juveniles from 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. daily. According to Probation Department literature, an equivalent of two full-time clinicians are available in the Hall. These professionals provide assessment, treatment, and crisis intervention.
F10:
The Juvenile Hall facility is thirty-five years old and operates on a 24/7 basis. As acknowledged by Juvenile Hall staff, the building shows signs of aging and heavy use.
F11:
Juvenile Hall does not have adequate heating and has no air conditioning systems.
F12:
The building has two units, with twenty beds each. The “B” unit is used to house younger and less sophisticated detainees. (“Sophistication” is a term used in the 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -32 Report on the Juvenile Hall detention industry to describe an offender’s familiarity with and adeptness in crime and detention.) The “A” unit houses the older and more sophisticated offenders.
F13:
The facility houses youths between the ages of 12 and 18, male as well as female. Females and younger males are housed apart from older youths. A separate facility is used to house offenders aged 19 and older.
F14:
Children under the age of 12 are the responsibility of Child Protective Services and are not housed at Juvenile Hall.
F15:
Very few of the females in the facility are there for violent crimes or crimes with victims.
F16:
Approximately 85% to 90% of the boys and essentially all of the girls housed in the facility are there for what the staff regards as drug-related reasons.
F17:
The facility offers a wide variety of training programs.
F18:
The facility does not have a covered gym.
F19:
County buses do not service Juvenile Hall. The closest bus stop is one mile from Juvenile Hall. Although bus vouchers are available to parents and juveniles, these are not used often. Juvenile Hall staff confirms that the facility’s location does create difficulties for parents in accessing the facility. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should implement a feasibility study for a new Juvenile Hall located more centrally in Santa Cruz County.
R2:
The Grand Jury acknowledges that undertaking the relocation and construction of a new Juvenile Hall will be a lengthy process. Restoration of the present facility and the addition of heating and air conditioning systems at the Graham Hill location should be undertaken to upgrade the facility until such time as a new juvenile facility is built.
R3:
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District should offer a bus route(s) with stops available at Juvenile Hall. Response Required Entity
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The two different categories of facilities at the site make it easier to handle discipline issues, since inmates can be easily moved from one to the other. Staff reports that the significantly higher level of privileges in the minimum-security unit leads most inmates to prefer and strive for assignment to that facility.
F2:
Each of the units in the medium-security facility has a rated capacity of 48. Each of the units in that facility has 55 beds, allowing for the temporary housing of more inmates than the rated capacity.
F3:
The minimum-security facility housed 68 inmates on October 3, 2001, the day of the Grand Jury’s tour.
F4:
All told, the facility has a rated capacity of 162 and a total bed capacity of 250 inmates. Again, this allows for the temporary housing of inmates numbering in excess of the rated capacity.
F5:
The kitchen floor has been refinished, in accordance with the recommendations of the 1999-2000 Grand Jury. Work was completed in 2001.
F6:
The roof of the minimum-security facility has been repaired in accordance with the
F7:
If a detainee is an illegal immigrant, the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) requires that they be held in at least a medium-security facility. These detainees are then transferred to the INS for a deportation hearing upon their release.
F8:
Inmates of the jail farm are able to attend classes daily from 8:30 AM until 11:00 AM. Vocational classes fall into five categories: auto body repair, food services, landscaping, building maintenance, and computer operation. Other classes offered at the facility include English as a second language and General Education Diploma (GED) preparatory classes.
F9:
Additional courses are available at the jail farm in substance abuse, anger management, and general job skills training. Additional programs are also provided by volunteer organizations. These include Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, AIDS education classes as well as Bible and church services. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -10 Report on the Rountree Facility
F10:
Although a somewhat smaller number of classes are available in the medium-security facility, courses are available in English as a second language, preparation for the GED, substance abuse, anger management and job skills. As at the farm, a number of self-help programs are also provided by volunteer organizations.
F11:
A library is available to all inmates at Rountree. Although books cannot be brought directly into the medium-security facility, they can be obtained on an inmate’s behalf directly from the publisher or from an online book distributor like Amazon.com. In the minimum-security facility, relatives are able to bring books to the inmates.
F12:
An auto body shop is run at the facility. This is maintained partially for the purposes of training and to enable inmates to document work performance when subsequently entering the workforce. It also generates revenue.
F13:
The Sheriff’s department maintains a general accounting of Inmate Welfare Fund monies for all facilities collectively. However, there is no breakdown or itemization of income and expense items from the individual facilities.
F14:
The revenues received by the auto body shop are not reported as income into the “Inmate Welfare Fund.” Similarly, the expenses of the shop are not listed as expenditures associated with the fund. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
As the proprietor of the Inmate Welfare Fund, the Sheriff’s department should record and track all expenses and revenues associated with the fund in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Response Required Entity
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Professionals working in the substance abuse field believe that fast initial response to beginning drug experimentation is crucial in preventing substance addiction.
F2:
The seven public high schools are complying with the zero-tolerance policy through suspensions and expulsion, with the intent of keeping schools a drug and alcohol free environment.
F3:
The County school districts have the following responses to substance abuse: 1st offense 2nd offense 3rd offense Under the influence § 3 day suspension § counseling § assessment § 5 day suspension § counseling § recommended for expulsion Drug possession § 3 day suspension § counseling § citation § assessment § arrest if hard drugs § 5 day suspension § citation § arrest if hard drugs § recommended for expulsion § arrest if hard drugs Selling drugs on campus § expulsion § arrest § expulsion § arrest § expulsion § arrest
F4:
The zero-tolerance policy has significantly increased demand for substance abuse treatment programs.
F5:
The following substance abuse intervention programs are the most frequently used: A. Triad Community Services in Scotts Valley is a state-certified non-profit, private corporation under contract with the County Health and Human Services Agency. It provides assessment and services for substance abusers. This program serves individuals in North County. B. Youth Services in Santa Cruz and Watsonville is a program of Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center, a non-profit group that is supported by United Way. It provides assessment and substance abuse counseling and other services such as crisis counseling and a runaway program. C. Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance (PVPSA) in Watsonville offers early assessment and treatment for students of the PajaroValley Unified School District, who have been suspended for substance use, and for students with alcohol/drug problems who have asked for help.
F6:
Those high schools students who are found to be in possession of alcohol or drugs on campus can expect to be cited by the School Resource Officer. The SRO is a peace 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -22 Review of Initial Alcohol and Drug Intervention with High School Age Youth officer from the local policing agency assigned to the school for security. The citation issued by the SRO will be sent to the Juvenile Probation Division. The Juvenile Probation Division investigates the incident and arranges for a conference with the student and parents.
F7:
A first-time offender may be placed on probation or may be considered for a diversion program. The process of placing a first-time offender on a diversion program frequently takes two months to initiate. A diversion program will avoid a permanent record and will include several months of counseling, group sessions, contracts, community service, writing essays and possibly a waiver for search and seizure.
F8:
The School Resource Officers are on the school site, know the students and can establish a relationship with them. The SROs also understand the social structure of the school.
F9:
The high schools use the following programs for early assessment and counseling: A. Students in the PajaroValley Unified School District, which include Aptos High School and Watsonville High School, are referred to Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance (PVPSA). It is a non-profit agency that supports Pajaro Valley School District. This model, which has a documented success rate, automatically and immediately places students in intervention programs. B. Students in the Santa Cruz City School District, which include Harbor, Santa Cruz and Soquel Highs, are referred to Youth Services for assessment and substance abuse counseling. C. Students from ScottsValley and San Lorenzo High Schools are referred to Triad Community Services for assessment and substance abuse counseling.
F10:
PVPSA originally was formed as part of the Pajaro Valley Unified School District to provide school-based student assistance programs. It broke away from the Pajaro Valley Unified School District in 1991 to become a private non-profit agency dedicated to exclusively serving Pajaro Valley Unified School District. A PVPSA brochure states, “because it is a non-profit, it can receive funds from the school district, county, state and federal governments, and also apply for private foundations' grants. It also serves as a conduit to bring together a broad range of stakeholders, including the school district, law enforcement, courts, the city and the county.”
F11:
Soquel High School has a new health clinic on campus called the Healthy Teen Clinic. The Clinic is funded by Dominican Hospital and Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency, and is a place where students can get help with the management of acute and chronic health problems, and where they can initiate treatment for substance abuse. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The School Resource Officers should develop and supervise their own diversion programs for first-time offenders, as they are more closely associated with the students and could more easily track the progress of the youth than can be done by the personnel in the larger juvenile probation system.
R2:
School Districts should give high priority to the development of school-based programs by non-profit agencies similar to PVPSA, to enable prompt and continuing assessment and intervention for first-time offenders. Response Required Entity
R3:
The Juvenile Probation Division should alter its intake procedures to ensure early referral to assessment and diversion programs for first-time offenders.
R4:
After intake screening at Juvenile Hall, whenever possible, the same Probation Officer should continue to be assigned to the same youth offender.
R5:
To help youth remain free from substance abuse, the cities and the County of Santa Cruz should develop more ‘teen centers.’ Response Required Entity
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
25 findings
F1:
Of the estimated 3300 homeless people in Santa Cruz County, between 30% to 35% are mentally ill. Mental health professionals state that an additional 10% to 20% of homeless individuals are undiagnosed but have mental/emotional problems, which interfere with acceptable social behavior.
F2:
The following services are available to mentally ill homeless adults: A. Santa Cruz County Mental Health Clinic Services B. River Street Shelter C. Page Smith Community House, a transitional housing shelter D. Mental Health Client Action Network E. County Homeless Person Health Project F. Homeless Community Resource Center G. Santa Cruz Community Action Board Shelter Project H. In-patient psychiatric unit at Dominican Hospital I. Suicide Prevention Service of the Central Coast J. Adult Protective Services K. Community Clinics
F3:
There are no standards in use to measure the adequacy of community resources to assist mentally ill homeless adults in need of treatment.
F4:
According to mental health professionals, lack of affordable housing for all low- income people in this county makes it very difficult if not impossible for mentally ill persons to find housing. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -24 Review of Mental Health Services for Homeless Adults in Santa Cruz County
F5:
Locating housing for mentally ill people is exacerbated by the public’s lack of understanding of their capabilities under treatment to exhibit acceptable social behavior.
F6:
Many people are reluctant to have mentally ill persons living in their communities.
F7:
Mental health professionals believe that lack of stable housing adversely affects the condition of the mentally ill person.
F8:
The County Mental Health Division has Care Services Coordinators who reach out to the homeless mentally ill by linking them to shelter, and other types of assistance that can help prevent the need for admission to the acute psychiatric unit. These Coordinators also help clients pay their rent to avoid eviction, sometimes by helping them obtain bank loans.
F9:
Housing of some kind is essential for a successful outcome in the treatment of adults with chronic mental disorders.
F10:
The Homeless Persons Health Project (HPHP) has been operating with great success over the past ten years. It is supported by a demonstration grant whose purpose was to refine methods, which are affective in reaching the homeless people in a community. The Program has received plaudits for its creative approach of providing outreach services to improve the health of homeless individual and families.
F11:
The staff from HPHP report that one of the principle problems with treating mentally ill homeless people is locating them, and encouraging them to recognize and take advantage of the opportunity to use medical and psychological treatment resources available to them.
F12:
Puentes, a collaborative pilot project between the Homeless Persons Health Project (HPHP) and County Mental Health Division, is an integrated service program that emphasizes housing, employment and integration into the community. The program currently serves 30 homeless persons. The program has been successful in identifying, contacting and obtaining mental health care for homeless individuals previously unable or resistant to obtaining available mental health services available to them. Puentes also works to prevent formerly homeless persons with psychiatric disabilities from losing their housing and returning to the streets. HPHP has recently submitted another grant request to expand their services to 60 persons.
F13:
Mental Health Client Acton Network (MHCAN) is a non-profit agency operated by and for mental health clients. MHCAN’s approach is based on the principle that users of mental health services are uniquely capable of reaching out to others who need mental health services. Employing this philosophy, the agency provides the only consumer-operated self-help drop-in activity center in Santa Cruz County, which a staff member described as “a safe environment in which mental health clients can socialize without fear of the discrimination and stigmatization so prevalent in society as a whole.” The center offers peer counselor training, support groups, art and writing classes, and has a computer lab. The center also provides opportunity for social networking and advocacy. MHCAN is a valuable source of information, guidance and support for adults with a history of mental illness (currently about one-half of MHCAN clients). For the past four years MHCAN has published a Newsletter for the 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report Review of Mental Health Services for Homeless Adults in Santa Cruz County -25 California Network of Mental Health Clients and put on workshops for Peer Mutual Support at the California State Client forum. MHCAN staff also makes presentations to police departments and local churches, and serve on the County’s Quality Improvement Committee. They have formed two work groups in partnership with professional providers; one to create jobs for consumers in all contract agencies of County Mental Health; the second to work on community acceptance of apartments dedicated for use by mental health patients.
F14:
Page Smith Community House (PSCH), which is operated by The Homeless Services Center, provides transitional housing for homeless adults, some of whom are mentally ill. During an 18-month period of residence and participation in community living, residents are prepared for independent living. They must meet requirements such as remaining clean and sober and to actively seek employment. While at PSCH, the client has a private room and shares two bathrooms and one kitchen/living room with four others. There are eight units, with a total of forty residents. As reported by PSCH to HUD on April 4, 2002, 90.6% of PSCH graduates have made a successful transition to employment and housing.
F15:
In addition to the PSCH, The Homeless Services Center operates the Homeless Community Resources Center, which the homeless mentally ill can access. The center offers two meals per day, showers, telephones, lockers, laundry facilities and access to the nighttime shelter program called the Interfaith Satellite Shelter Program, a program that has existed for many years. In the Interfaith Satellite Shelter Program, the Homeless Services Center works with more than thirty different churches on a daily rotation. Each night seven churches support fourteen homeless persons, all of whom have been screened and are transported to the churches. In winter the Armory is used for the overflow.
F16:
Many of the programs supporting the homeless mentally ill are funded by grants, which generally last no more than three years.
F17:
Mentally ill homeless people have a need for transportation for such things as conducting a housing search or job search, going to a job interview or going to a job for the first couple of shifts, and going to medical appointments.
F18:
Many mentally ill homeless people are dependent on Social Security income. They are eligible for discounted monthly Metro Pass costing about $30.00. But they have to be stable, have their life and money management organized to accomplish this each month. Even with a bus pass, it takes hours to get from one part of town to another, and it’s difficult to socialize and attend events using only public transportation.
F19:
HPHP spends $600 a year on Metro passes to give to people who do not have a monthly pass and need to attend health related appointments. HPHP spends approximately $800 per year on taxicab fares for people who are too sick to take public transportation for special needs and HPHP staff person is unavailable to drive the client in the staff person’s own car.
F20:
HPHP uses trips to baseball games, concerts and other such events to motivate the homeless individual to want to earn money through employment. Transportation is needed for this endeavor. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -26 Review of Mental Health Services for Homeless Adults in Santa Cruz County
F21:
Use of a van from the Santa Cruz County Fleet Service would better serve the transportation needs of the homeless population.
F22:
Using the County Fleet Service is more economical than paying HPHP staff persons mileage for using their own cars.
F23:
Many individuals have not or will not apply for Medical or Social Security Disability allowance because of distrust of the system. This makes it difficult to obtain mental health care without these entitlements.
F24:
The Santa Cruz County branch of the National Alliance for Mentally Ill worked with the Santa Cruz City Police Department’s Homeless Resource Officer and fifteen of its police officers to train them in Crisis Intervention. The organization plans to extend the training to all 500 police officers in Santa Cruz County.
F25:
All of the agencies contacted by the Grand Jury Committee reported a much greater need for their services than they can presently supply. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should provide leadership and support to foster efforts to create more affordable transitional and permanent housing with support services in our community for people with psychiatric disabilities, especially those who have been homeless.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors and city councils should expand the capacity of successful, ongoing programs such as the Homeless Persons Health Project to help mentally ill adults who are homeless.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors and city councils should continue to support the successful homeless service providers such as Homeless Services Center and River Street Programs.
R4:
The Santa Cruz County Office of National Alliance for the Mentally Ill should continue its goal of training every police officer in the county to handle crisis situations involving persons who suffer from a mental illness.
R5:
The County should give priority to assigning a van from the County Fleet Service for use by the Homeless Persons Health Project. Response Required Entity
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The Blaine Street jail is a minimum-security facility set in a home-like environment complete with a backyard, benches, children's sandbox and vegetable garden. The State Board of Corrections has rated the facility to house 40 female inmates. The average occupancy for the year ending 2001 was eighteen inmates per month. The accepted officer-to-inmate ratio is one to fifty/sixty inmates. Therefore, only one officer is required to be on duty.
F2:
The County's Health Service Agency provides medical, pharmacy and diagnostic services. Doctors from the Main Jail attend sick call each weekday morning. A chaplain, Crisis Intervention Team and other service providers also come to the facility.
F3:
The Supervising Correctional Officer from Blaine Street interviews inmates at the Main Jail at the time of booking. All persons arrested in Santa Cruz County are booked through the Main Jail. During the assessment interview the inmate is informed of house rules, behavioral expectations, work assignment and class attendance requirements that must be met in order to be assigned to Blaine Street. According to the supervisor, inmates must display a cooperative attitude and peaceful behavior if they are to remain at this facility.
F4:
The female inmates move freely inside the facility and on the fenced grounds. There are no locked doors at the facility. Inmates detained at Blaine Street can walk away from their incarceration at any time. This rarely happens, however, because inmates understand the consequence for leaving or violating facility rules is a return to the Main Jail. Most of the women prefer to serve their time at the Blaine Street facility because of the special privileges available there.
F5:
Blaine Street inmates have smoking privileges that are not available at the Main Jail. The back yard is the designated smoking area.
F6:
Inmates can purchase candy, soda, cigarettes, playing cards and personal items from vending machines. They also have access to television, exercise equipment, videos, board games and a library.
F7:
Inmates are allowed one two-hour visit with family each weekend. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Review of the Blaine Street Women’s Facility -3
F8:
Many of the women return to this facility, as they are frequent offenders. At the time of the Grand Jury’s tour, staff at Blaine Street had no means of tracking the rate of recidivism.
F9:
The most common offenses are related to substance abuse (drugs and alcohol).
F10:
The average inmate stay is three to four months.
F11:
The inmates' day begins at 6:30 a.m. and lights out is at 10:00 p.m.
F12:
Each inmate is assigned duties that may include kitchen chores, cleaning the facility and other household tasks. The inmates prepare meals in the small kitchen with menus developed by the Food Service Manager from the Main Jail. Some of the inmates also help prepare meals at the Main Jail under the Food Service Manager’s supervision.
F13:
Some of the inmates participate in the Work Release Program, which permits participants to work during the day and return to the facility in the evening. In some cases, this allows inmates to continue in a job they held before their incarceration.
F14:
The jail provides some training classes and help in getting a high school diploma while the inmate is incarcerated. The following are some of the classes that are offered at the facility for the inmates: • Computer Classes • Narcotics and Alcoholics Anonymous • Smoking Cessation • Career and Job Development • GED Preparation • Art Classes • Parenting Classes • Knitting and Crocheting Classes. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The inmates that meet the criteria to be housed currently at Blaine Street should be moved to another minimum-security facility such as a halfway house.
R2:
Blaine Street staff should develop a system for tracking recidivism. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -4 Review of the Blaine Street Women’s Facility
R3:
The Blaine Street facility should be remodeled and made into a medium-security wing for housing women who need more supervision and restrictions but who do not need to be housed at the maximum-security Main Jail. This renovation would provide the alternative of removing from the Main Jail women inmates who are incarcerated for minor infractions and need only a medium-security facility. This would also separate female inmates requiring only a medium-security facility from the more violent and/or more criminally sophisticated female inmates. A Blaine Street renovation would also relieve overcrowding at the Main Jail while more fully utilizing the Blaine Street facility and would also increase the available system capacity for male inmates at the Main Jail. Response Required Entity
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Main Jail continues to be seriously overcrowded.
F2:
Moving women inmates requiring medium-security incarceration to another facility would help ease overcrowding at the Main Jail.
F3:
Finding another means of dealing with alcohol-related administrative detentions (which increase dramatically during the weekends) could reduce the workload, overcrowding and expense associated with bookings at the jail.
F4:
Salaries for detention officers are lower in Santa Cruz County than in other counties in the Bay area. Officers leave to take higher paying jobs after training. The financial investment made by the County in training new detention officers is lost due to the high turnover rate because officers can receive higher salaries in the Bay area.
F5:
Failure to implement a salary schedule appropriate to Santa Cruz County is a root cause of continuing unfilled vacancies and employee turnover among detention officers.
F6:
The Main Jail staff should be acknowledged for the high degree of dedication and professionalism they exhibit despite overcrowding and staff turnover.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department should investigate other approaches to dealing with alcohol- only administrative detentions.
R2:
The Blaine Street facility should be converted to a medium-security unit for housing women who do not need to be held in the maximum-security Main Jail but who need more supervision and restrictions than afforded by the present minimum-security Blaine Street configuration. This would help alleviate overcrowding at the Main Jail by freeing up approximately 46 beds. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -8 Review of the Main Jail
R3:
The Board of Supervisors of Santa Cruz County must establish and implement a salary schedule for the Santa Cruz County Jail system that is competitive with the counties in the Bay area rather than other central California counties. Response Required Entity
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
By law, a death certificate is required for every deceased person. The decedent’s physician completes this form if he/she has attended to the decedent during the past twenty days and can offer a plausible cause of death. The clause “death by natural causes” is not permitted on a death certificate. The decedent’s physician must record a definitive reason for death. If a death is caused by homicide, suicide, results from an accident (including drug overdoses), or if there is no attending physician, the case is turned over to the County Coroner.
F2:
Decedents are identified by means of: • Personal viewing of the remains by a family member or friend • Identification card • Driver’s license • Fingerprints • Dental records • DNA testing.
F3:
A cemetery authority, a licensed funeral director, a licensed hospital or its authorized personnel may initiate an autopsy of any remains in their custody with authorization by the deceased’s will or other recorded document, or by next of kin, or when required by law. The County Morgue has one physician who conducts all of the autopsies for Santa Cruz County.
F4:
In the Indigent Burial Program, once the cause of death has been determined, a Sheriff-Coroner’s Deputy contacts one of the funeral homes to arrange transportation of the remains. After receiving written notice of the cause of death, the funeral director or cemetery authority has the responsibility for disposition of the remains within seven days. Usually the body is kept no longer than three days. During this time, preparation is made for showing or cremation. If family is available and can afford the costs of a service, the deceased is not considered to be indigent.
F5:
In the Indigent Burial Program, due to the financial situation of the decedent, the body is typically placed in an approved cardboard box and transported to the crematory. At the crematory, the body passes through a detailed and rigorous system of identification. The cremation process is carried out according to standard protocol. The ash is then placed in an approved container, which is either returned to the responsible kin or to another responsible authority.
F6:
If the decedent is part of the Indigent Burial Program, the ashes may be given to the next of kin. If there is no next of kin, the ashes will be spread at sea by authorized 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -6 Review of the Santa Cruz County
F7:
The Deputy Public Administrator must determine whether or not the decedent had sufficient resources to pay for his or her cremation. To determine eligibility for the Indigent Burial Program, the Public Administrator will: • Use the Assessor’s files to see if the decedent (or relatives) owned property • Speak with the relatives of the deceased (if any), to determine the ability of the estate to pay for the cremation • Discuss the decedent’s source of income and any assets the person had (house, car, and belongings) that could be sold in order to pay for the cremation • Utilize available county indexes, i.e., court files, fictitious business names and voter registration, or Sheriff booking records • Consult with Parole Officers • Research state prison records • Search all computerized data resources • Search Veterans’ records.
F8:
Annually, the County opens the bidding to determine the funeral homes that are willing to take bodies through the Indigent Burial Program. The funeral homes sign county contracts each fiscal year and receive the bodies on a rotational basis.
F9:
During the course of the past several contracts, the following funeral homes and Soquel Cemetery and Crematory have contracted with the Santa Cruz County to be vendors for the Indigent Burial Program: • Benito & Azarro Pacific Garden Chapel, Santa Cruz • Davis Memorial Chapel, Watsonville • Mehl’s Colonial Chapel, Watsonville • Norman’s Family Chapel, Santa Cruz
F10:
The annual funds allocated to this program are approximately $25,000. As a courtesy, the Indigent Burial Program will pay an indigent’s final expenses and allow the family to repay the fund. Arrangements can be made for an affordable payment as low as $10 per month. A letter is mailed to the family as a reminder of their promise to repay the debt. If the family refuses to honor the loan, the case is forwarded to County Collections and the Treasurer’s Office for handling.
F11:
During the 2000–2001 fiscal year, the Public Administrator received approximately fifty-seven referrals for Indigent Burial Program funding; forty-seven of these were actually processed through the Indigent Burial Program. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report Review of the Santa Cruz County -7 Burial Services Program for Indigents
F12:
The table below indicates the total number of decedents that were accepted through the Indigent Burial Program from 1999 through February 2002, and for whom the County paid cremation expenses. 1999 – 2000 2000 – 2001 2001 – 2002 Number of Indigents 56 47 Open Cost per Indigent $548.50 $548.50 $595.50
F13:
At the end of fieldwork in February 2002, there were already sixty-two referrals to the Indigent Burial Program for the current fiscal year, seventeen of which occurred after January 1, 2002.
F14:
Typically, a funeral home will charge $1500 to $1800 for a cremation; the agreed County fee is $595.50. The cost breakdown for indigent cremation is as follows: Item Cost Funeral Processing $355.29 Carton $35.00 Sales Tax $2.71 Cremation $187.00 Processing Fee $8.50 Total $595.50
F15:
Another service offered by the County is burial services for victims of violent crimes through the Victim/Witness Program. The County will pay a maximum of $5000 for a victim’s final expenses whether or not the family has sufficient funds. The Victim/Witness Program funds are not part of the Indigent Burial Program. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should increase the budget for this program in order to cover the increased use and cost of the program.
R2:
The Grand Jury commends the Public Administrator, the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office and the funeral home and crematory services for their dedication to this program.
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The jury visited the harbor three times during the course of this review: A. Santa Cruz Yacht Harbor is a popular tourist destination. B. Members of the Jury observed during these visits that the harbor area appears to be well maintained. C. Public Port District meetings are held on the fourth Tuesday of every month starting at 7:30 p.m.. Public meetings are usually held at the Harbor Public Meeting Room, 365-A Lake Avenue, Santa Cruz. Members of the Grand Jury attended one of these meetings and observed that the meetings appear to be run in an orderly and professional manner. D. The District is responsible for many ongoing maintenance projects as well as long term improvements to the harbor. E. Revenues are generated from almost every aspect of the harbor operation. Launch fees, parking fees, slip fees, guest docking, RV parking, rent on retail space, boat storage all generate the money needed for daily operations and long term improvements. The District is also very active in obtaining grant money whenever possible.
F2:
Businesses are located throughout the harbor area: A. The Harbor Business Association Member Directory is located on the Internet through the Port District site: http://www.santacruzharbor.org/visitor/bus_dir.html. B. Retail shops must apply to the District for a lease. Upon approval, the District issues a lease for a determined amount of time. This is normally five years with the option to renew. C. The Harbor Patrol presence also adds to security and there is very little crime in the area. This fact also enhances the good business climate. D. There are many popular restaurants in the harbor attracting many locals as well as tourists to the harbor area. E. The closeness to the harbor and to the beach sometimes creates parking problems for visitors to the harbor and to the local restaurants. Parking within the harbor area is in high demand during the summer months. F. Other than minor complaints concerning restroom maintenance and dock repair, members of the Grand Jury found that the District has done an excellent job in making the harbor a favorable place for local merchants as well as their customers and other visitors.
F3:
Although there are about 1200 boat slips in the harbor, there are about the same number of boat owners waiting for slips. The District charges boat owners an annual fee to be placed on a waiting list. The waiting period for a slip in the South Harbor may be as much as 9-10 years. In the North Harbor the wait for a slip is much less, 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report Review of the Santa Cruz Port District -13 about 3-6 years. The District tries to ensure that existing boat owners are, in fact, actually using the harbor and not merely parking a boat in a slip. The District has established a rule that a slip renter must take his boat out at least ten times per year or risk losing his place in the harbor. Slips are not transferable with the sale of a boat. When a boat is sold the new owner is given time to look for a new place to berth his boat. In the past, slips were transferred with the boat. This practice led to abuse of the slip rental policy. There are currently about 87 people who live on their boats in the harbor. The harbor provides non-metered electricity to these people and to the all other boat owners at a set rate of $35.00 per month. Some boat owners who use small amounts of electricity would prefer metered electricity for a more equitable charge.
F4:
Because the harbor is such a large area with many facilities, there are many ongoing capital improvements planned by the District. Recently a new lighthouse was constructed to mark the entrance to the harbor. This was done with private funds at no cost to taxpayers. Charles Walton donated the initial $60,000 to get this project started. Walton, a Los Gatos resident who is a semi-retired electronics businessman and fisherman, made the donation in honor of his late brother, Derek Walton, who served in the Merchant Marines. This new Lighthouse is known as the Walton Lighthouse and officially as the Santa Cruz Harbor Light.
F5:
Another project recently completed is the Joseph G. Townsend Maritime Plaza. The plaza is located just outside of the Crow’s Nest Restaurant. This project was made possible through grants from the Economic Development Administration and the Federal Transportation Enhancement Act. Additionally, many private donors also helped to fund this project. Joseph G. Townsend has been a Port District Commissioner for the last 25 years. His leadership of the District has been instrumental in making the harbor what it is today. State Senator Bruce McPherson, Supervisors Mardi Wormhoudt and Jan Beautz, and Mayor Tim Fitzmaurice of the City of Santa Cruz dedicated the plaza in his honor on September 7, 2001.
F6:
Apart from the above mentioned projects are long range plans for replacing the deteriorating seawall near Aldo’s Restaurant, increasing the number of visitor slips and general improvements to the North Harbor.
F7:
The District has recently installed an oil reclamation facility to protect the quality of the harbor’s water.
F8:
Much planning goes into all capital improvements and the District appears to be very diligent in finding funding before the projects are undertaken.
F9:
Santa Cruz Harbor is dredged generally between November and April annually. This dredging operation is the most expensive daily operation at the harbor. The harbor owns and maintains the dredging vessel. Geographically, the mouth of the harbor is located in an area where sand is constantly building up. In order to ensure that the harbor is navigable, the entrance must be constantly dredged. Dredging removes the sand from the mouth of the South Harbor. The sand is then deposited through a dredge discharge line, into the inter-tidal zone in the bay where it drifts down the coast, and helps to replenish the sand to all beaches east of the harbor. Dredging of the North Harbor is a much different operation. The North Harbor drains Arana Gulch and much of the surrounding area. The sediment deposited in the North Harbor is far different 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -14 Review of the Santa Cruz Port District from the sand that is dredge from the channel entrance in South Harbor, and must be treated differently. The North Harbor’s sediment consists of only 40% sand and 60% silt. Although this sediment does not contain chemical pollutants, it does contain much organic material and silt. Instead of dredging this material it is removed by a clamshell bucket, deposited in the parking lot and left to drain. The material is then removed by dump trucks and deposited in a landfill site in Seaside. This is a costly operation.
F10:
The Port District would like to be able to take the sediment dredged from North Harbor and deposit it further out in the Monterey Bay. Because of environmental concerns and possible pollution of the Monterey Bay Wildlife Sanctuary, this method has not yet been approved. The District contracted with Moss Landing Marine Lab for a demonstration project to support its position that this sediment poses no threat to the Bay. The preliminary report of this project, issued in March of 2002, supports the Port District’s position that the sediment is not a threat to the Bay. Approval for depositing the sediment in the bay would result in a substantial savings of at least $325,000 per year to the Port District, based on 5000 cubic yards of sediment, which is the average annual amount of sediment dredged. Before proceeding with depositing this dredged material in the Monterey Bay, the District needs to receive approval from a number of agencies. The District must demonstrate to the Army Corp of Engineers that they are in compliance with section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and compliant with EPA standards. Next the District will need a permits from the Coastal Commission, the California State Water Quality Control Board in San Luis Obispo and the Monterey Bay National Marine Wildlife Sanctuary
F11:
Santa Cruz Harbor is home to a commercial fishing fleet. Santa Cruz Harbor is primarily a salmon fishery. There is also a small crabbing operation along with albacore, halibut, and rockfish fisheries. Foreign imports of fish from South America and domestic farming compete directly with local fisheries. There are, however, enough local markets such as restaurants and fresh fish retail markets in the area to minimally sustain local fishing. The last several years have been abundant for salmon. Salmon season runs May through September, albacore usually from September through December.
F12:
There is a local fish buyer located in the harbor at the “S” and “T” docks. Having a local buyer in the harbor ensures that the fisherman have an available market for their catch. The Port District has recently upgraded the District-owned facility leased by the resident fish buyer. The facility has been upgraded to include a new ice-making machine that is capable of providing all the ice that is needed to run the facility.
F13:
It is essential to the fishing fleet that the mouth of the harbor remains open all year. The commercial fishermen welcome the dredging program. The Santa Cruz Local Fisherman’s Association maintains a very good relationship with the Port District. Both the Santa Cruz Harbor and the Fisherman’s Association are members of Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries. This Alliance is an organization that seeks to preserve currently threatened fisheries and fishing communities. They work closely with the Monterey Bay Wildlife Preserve in order to achieve this end. The Alliance can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nfcc-fisheries.org/monterey/index.shtml. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report Review of the Santa Cruz Port District -15 Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Port District should continue to provide the same high level of maintenance at the harbor and all facilities including dock repair and restroom maintenance.
R2:
The Port District should continue to maintain and update the Port District’s website located at: http://www.santacruzharbor.org/
R3:
The Port District should continue to pursue investigating the less expensive alternative disposal of the North Harbor sediment, while addressing environmental concerns.
R4:
The Port District should consider offering an optional plan for metered electricity.
R5:
The Port district should maintain the same high degree of professionalism and long range planning.
R6:
The Port district should continue to provide facilities and support for the local fishing community. 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report -16 Review of the Santa Cruz Port District
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
28 findings
F1:
Studies show that a majority of high school students are either currently using alcohol and/or drugs, or have used these substances in the past. Even as early as 7th grade, 52% of these youngsters have been or currently are using drugs or alcohol. The data cited are from the “Healthy Kids Survey of Santa Cruz County,” a study conducted by the County’s school districts, and include alternative schools, The Ark, Loma Prieta and Renaissance High Schools, but not the County Office of Education Alternative Education schools. The data represent lifetime use. Page 1-4 Substance Abuse in Santa Cruz County High Schools Consequences and Responsibility 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report Santa Cruz County Youth Survey, 2001 Grade 7 Grade 9 Grade 11 Substance Used Santa Santa Santa Calif. Calif. Calif. Cruz Cruz Cruz Alcohol 29% 25% 57% 50% 73% 70% Been Drunk 11% 10% 33% 24% 53% 45% Inhalants 12% 6% 15% 8% 16% 14% Marijuana 11% 8% 32% 24% 50% 45% Cocaine 7% 4% 9% 9% Methamphetamines 7% 4% 8% 9% Hallucinogens 7% 6% 10% 12% Heroin 4% 2% 4% 3%
F2:
Heroin use has shown a frightening rise among students at the 9th grade level. By 11th grade, another 4% of students are new heroin users. The 4% of the student population who are heroin users in 9th grade do not stay in regular public schools. By the 11th grade, these students have either dropped out of school, are in alternative schools, are in drug treatment programs or juvenile detention, or are deceased. This represents approximately 8% of the total high school student population who use heroin.
F3:
The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program is offered to students from 5th grade through 9th grade. At the time of this report, no such program exists for high school students above the 9th grade.
F4:
Santa Cruz County public high school students receive substance abuse education in a one-semester health class. Substance abuse is only one of many topics covered in this class.
F5:
School officials and law enforcement officers both report that public and parental apathy contribute to a lack of meaningful consequences for substance abuse and juvenile crime incidents. Surveys show Santa Cruz County leads the state in support of medical and recreational marijuana use. Some parents shrug off what they consider to be “minor” drug incidents.
F6:
Due to the rise in school violence, a full time SRO is assigned to each high school campus. These peace officers have to deal with every type of criminal behavior including vandalism, substance abuse, physical violence and weapons on campus. The SRO is ultimately responsible for the physical safety of students and faculty.
F7:
Aptos High School and Scotts Valley High School are the only public high schools with closed campuses. A closed campus restricts students from leaving school grounds during school hours.
F8:
Five of the county’s public high schools have open campuses which allow students to leave and return during the school day.
F9:
An open campus policy presents the opportunity for some students to leave the school grounds to use, buy or sell drugs or alcohol. Substance Abuse in Santa Cruz County High Schools Page 1-5 Consequences and Responsibility 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
F10:
School officials report 50 to 100 on-campus drug incidents per school year in each of the county’s seven public high schools. The majority of these incidents involve possession of marijuana on campus.
F11:
On or off campus, when apprehended by law enforcement officers for substance abuse, a student is detained, the drugs or alcohol are confiscated, and a report is forwarded to the Juvenile Probation Division for follow-up.
F12:
A youth apprehended for selling drugs on campus is put under arrest and removed from the school campus. The youth is taken to Juvenile Hall for processing, and may or may not be held in custody depending on the risk assessment performed at Juvenile Hall. (See the second section of this report for further details on risk assessment.)
F13:
A first time drug offense usually results in a three-day suspension by the school district, mandatory community service, or some other supervised activity.
F14:
Drug testing is not a prerequisite for returning to campus.
F15:
It can take up to three months from the time of an incident until a probation officer meets with the juvenile and his or her parents.
F16:
The SRO can request information from the Juvenile Probation Division regarding specific individuals. The SRO is not provided with a list of students at their schools who are on probation, and is not informed of the disposition of pending cases.
F17:
Many programs that provide care or counseling for youths involved with substance abuse or with the juvenile justice system exist throughout the county. However, a consolidated referral list of these programs has not been developed.
F18:
Except at Soquel High School, teen centers or other supervised gathering points for teens do not exist on school grounds at this time.
F19:
Several agencies provide counseling on campus for a variety of different problems. (See report on Review of Initial Alcohol and Drug Intervention with High School Age Youth.) Conclusions
F20:
Reports and citations are referred to the Juvenile Probation Division for review and/or actions. Investigations are conducted and include meetings with the parents and the juvenile. Some cases are forwarded to Juvenile Court.
F21:
The delay between the time of arrest and initial contact with a probation officer is typically two to three months.
F22:
The Juvenile Probation Division interacts with the several law enforcement agencies conducting “Juvenile Diversion Programs.”
F23:
The Sheriff’s Department has no diversion programs in unincorporated areas policed by that agency. (See report on Review of Initial Alcohol and Drug Intervention with High School Age Youth.) Page 1-12 Substance Abuse in Santa Cruz County High Schools Consequences and Responsibility 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report
F24:
The Juvenile Probation Division reports that law enforcement officers can access any of the division’s information but that it does not routinely provide the information to officers.
F25:
The average length of stay in Juvenile Hall has been reduced. In 1999 the average length of stay was 32 days. At the close of fieldwork, the average length of stay was 8.9 days.
F26:
Some parents have reported the Juvenile Probation Division has a very lax attitude toward marijuana use. Some parents stated they were told by the Juvenile Probation Division, “At least it’s better than cocaine or methamphetamines.”
F27:
The County judicial system is evaluating juvenile detention reform.
F28:
The Watsonville Police Department has been instrumental in initiating dialogue between the Juvenile Probation Division and other law enforcement agencies. Conclusions