Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2004-2005
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (19)
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
54 findings
F1:
The State of California determines a minimum total CWS budget for each county. Some factors that influence the total minimum budget are: • number of children served; • cost to employ qualified social workers (as determined by the state); and • state ratios for number of social workers to children in need of services. Of this minimum required budget, the state contributes 70 percent and mandates that counties contribute 30 percent as a county share of the total CWS budget. Monies contributed by counties to their CWS budgets above the minimum required share are supplemented by other monies from state and federal sources. The resulting increased budget may not reflect the 70:30 budget contribution ratio.
F2:
Some counties supplement their CWS budget with additional state, federal and other monies. Santa Cruz County CWS has been able to access some of these funds.
F3:
In 2002-2003, Santa Cruz County overmatched the required minimum share of the CWS budget by $696,152. In 2003-2004, Santa Cruz County overmatched the required share of the minimum CWS budget by $718,541.
F4:
CWS budgets, county shares of these budgets, number of active cases and budget-to- child ratios vary from county to county. Fiscal Year 2002- Fiscal Year 2003- 2003 2004 Santa Cruz County Population: 251,584 Number of Active Cases 687 809 Total CWS Budget $8,246,650 $9,002,816 County Share Budget $1,538,957 $1,497,975 Total Budget Per Child $12,004 $11,128 County Share Budget Per Child $2,240 $1,852 The Welfare of Child Welfare: - 9 Comparison of Budgets 2004 – 2005 Santa Cruz Grand Jury Final Report County A Population: 246, 073 Number of Active Cases 470 391 Total CWS Budget $3,917,501 $4,778,564 County Share Budget $701,473 $967,956 Total Budget Per Child $8,335 $12,221 County Share Budget Per Child $1,493 $2,476 County B Population: 1,678,421 Number of Active Cases 5,638 5,242 Total CWS Budget $202,603,417 $214,665,827 County Share Budget $56,017,081 $52,586,883 Total Budget Per Child $35,936 $40,951 County Share Budget Per Child $9,936 $10,032 County C Population: 697,456 Number of Active Cases 1,175 1,216 Total CWS Budget $29,555,012 $31,736,859 County Share Budget $5,346,921 $7,453,884 Total Budget Per Child $25,153 $26,099 County Share Budget Per Child $4,551 $6,130 - 10 The Welfare of Child Welfare: Comparison of Budgets 2004 – 2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report County D Population: 131,607 Number of Active Cases 251 227 Total CWS Budget $8,523,987 $8,275,200 County Share Budget $779,255 $820,399 Total Budget Per Child $33,960 $36,455 County Share Budget Per Child $3,105 $3,614 Note: The total CWS budget number includes the 30 percent county share of the minimum budget, the 70 percent state share of the minimum budget and all additional county, state, federal and other dollars contributed to the CWS budget regardless of source. The populations of each county are 2003 US Census Bureau estimates.1 Table 1: Child Welfare Services Dollars Per Child Comparison.
F5:
The Grand Jury also researched information from the UC Berkeley “Point in Time” studies found on the UC Berkeley web site. This information, although very thorough in reporting data by children’s ages, caseloads of social workers and numbers of children in each category, is derived from the data of a single given day for each quarter.2 Conclusions
F6:
Compared to other counties, Santa Cruz County CWS has less funds available to serve an increasing number of active cases.
F7:
The UC Berkeley “Point in Time” studies do not reflect an annualized number of children served which the Grand Jury believes were needed for this budget analysis.
F8:
Rountree inmates can benefit from a variety of programs and educational opportunities.
F9:
The grievance procedures are due for a review and possible update.
F10:
The staff at Rountree performs its duties in a professional manner.
F11:
Closing the medical facility resulted in otherwise eligible inmates being housed in the Main Jail facility because of prescription drug needs.
F12:
The Blaine Street Jail buildings and grounds are attractive and well maintained.
F13:
The facility is well staffed, and staff appears to be attuned to the needs of the inmates.
F14:
There is a variety of useful activities available to the inmates.
F15:
Juvenile Hall is well managed with a caring and diverse staff.
F16:
The Juvenile Hall buildings and grounds are well maintained. - 12 Santa Cruz County Jails Review 2004 – 2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
F17:
Construction of a closed gymnasium would allow for adequate physical activity during poor weather.
F18:
The Home Electronic Monitoring program reduces the Juvenile Hall population.
F19:
For security and safety reasons, electronic doors need to be installed throughout the facility.
F20:
The heating and ventilation system in Juvenile Hall is inadequate.
F21:
The California Youth Authority Camp facility was well managed by a professional and well-trained staff.
F22:
The California Youth Authority Fire Camp provided a community service to Santa Cruz County.
F23:
The support provided to the CDF by the CYA wards was a beneficial service to our community.
F24:
The wards once housed there have lost an enriching opportunity to learn an employment skill, which might have kept them from returning to a life of crime.
F25:
Services available to Medi-Cruz recipients are: • primary health care in clinics; • X-rays; • pharmaceuticals; • emergency care; and • hospital (in-patient) care.
F26:
Medi-Cruz does not cover jailed inmates. The medical costs for incarcerated patients come from the Detention Jail budget. Even if they are active Medi-Cruz patients, services cease after they are booked according to HSA personnel.
F27:
According to Dominican Hospital personnel, there is a staff member at Dominican Hospital to assist people to sign up for Medi-Cruz and Medi-Cal. This position is not staffed 24 hours a day. Shades of Gray: - 7 Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital/Jail Medical Facility 2004-2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
F28:
Patients determined eligible for Medi-Cruz services can have treatment paid for retroactively. However, it is up to the client to cooperate and follow through with the paperwork for this to be accomplished.
F29:
The medical budget for detention facilities is $3 million. The three largest components of the detention medical budget are: • nursing/medical care (salaries) within the jail; • services delivered at the county health clinics (X-rays, pharmacy and laboratory are the largest intra-agency cost); and • outside medical care (Doctors On Duty or dental care).
F30:
CHIP funds may not be used to support health services provided to persons detained in a county or city jail or other correctional facility (W&I Code Section 16995).8
F31:
HSA personnel believed that claims for indigent detainees might be partially covered by CHIP money. The amount of funding the county receives from CHIP doesn’t allow for 100 percent reimbursement of all of those claims. The total 2004-2005 CHIP allocation for Santa Cruz County is $77,214.
F32:
According to HSA personnel, there is disagreement over who is financially responsible for blood draws and Breathalyzer tests done on detainees to determine drug and alcohol levels. The law is not specific, and it is an area of contention.
F33:
The jail does not do Breathalyzer tests or blood draws on arrested subjects. Law enforcement officers perform Breathalyzer tests. The hospital does not have Breathalyzer equipment. Nurses at the Main Jail do not take blood alcohol levels. They cannot collect evidence.
F34:
Hospital personnel must perform blood draws. As a result, this takes away from staff time to collect samples. Hospital staff is often called to testify in court regarding collection of such samples as evidence. Staff are not reimbursed for court appearances. Procedural Alternatives
F35:
A Santa Cruz County elected official says that legislation should be changed. People who are eligible for state medical benefits should not lose those benefits when incarcerated.
F36:
According to a Dominican Hospital medical staff member, patients could be better handled at the jail if there were an infirmary on site. Once they are cleared medically, they should be able to be monitored on site at the jail. Application for California Healthcare for Indigents Program Funding for Fiscal Year 2004-5, May 4,
F37:
Detention Health Services intends to clarify in writing the criteria for transporting individuals to emergency departments for medical clearance prior to bringing them to jail. It appears that many people being brought to emergency departments could be brought to the jail directly by police officers. Training for police also appears necessary so that individuals are brought to the appropriate location.9
F38:
Detention Medical staff is also evaluating current staffing patterns and hours to better serve this population in a cost-effective and clinically appropriate manner. Additional staffing may be required on Friday and Saturday nights for medical direction of these cases. This is a peak time for cases with alcohol and drug involvement. 10
F39:
The Board of Corrections’ rated capacity is 42 inmates. As of May 4, 2005, the facility had 22 inmates.
F40:
There have been six escapes (walkaways) in the past year.
F41:
There have been no deaths in the past year.
F42:
Fire drills are held monthly.
F43:
There are 25 rooms, five of which do not house inmates. These are used for storage or office space. The inmates’ rooms house up to two inmates per room.
F44:
Meals are prepared by inmates from menus provided by the county dietitian.
F45:
There are two classrooms in the facility. Attendance at these classes is voluntary. The classes offered are: • GED (General Equivalency Degree); • job skills; • Pajaro Valley Substance Abuse Prevention and Student Assistance; • exit plans; • computers; • crocheting and knitting; • parenting skills; • communication skills; • women’s health; • Narcotics Anonymous; • Alcoholics Anonymous; and • Bible study, various church groups.
F46:
Grievances are handled through a grievance form. An inmate can request this form from a staff member. If the grievance concerns a staff member, the grievance is handled with that staff member and the director. If the grievance concerns other areas, - 10 Santa Cruz County Jails Review 2004 – 2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report it is discussed with the director. Grievances are usually handled upon receipt of the form.
F47:
Each inmate is given a set behavior rules. If there is a violation of these rules, the following steps are taken: • a verbal warning is issued; • a written warning is issued; • privileges are lost; • extra work detail is assigned; • counseling is scheduled with the director; and • if there are too many infractions, the inmate is sent to the Main Jail.
F48:
Both the interior and exterior of the building are clean and neatly maintained. The outside area is in a garden setting and used by inmates for activities such as reading and socializing and is also used for family visits.
F49:
There is one officer on duty for all shifts, 24 hours a day. Conclusions
F50:
Under the Serial Inebriate Program, inebriates who are arrested three times go to detoxification or jail. Serial Inebriate Program in San Diego County
F51:
Started in January 2000, the Serial Inebriate Program is an innovative effort involving the City and County of San Diego, the San Diego Police and Sheriff's Departments, San Diego County Superior Courts, San Diego County Health and Human Services and Mental Health Systems, Inc. A number of agencies and treatment partners work in tandem with SIP. This collaborative effort provides a less expensive and more appropriate alternative to emergency departments and jails for treatment of homeless chronic inebriates. This program has had a dramatic effect on San Diego emergency - 10 Shades of Gray: Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital/Jail Medical Facility 2004-2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report departments.12 In San Diego, the first year of the program saw 144 people enter the program. A year later, 58 percent had had no contact with police since leaving treatment.
F52:
The goals of the Serial Inebriate Program (SIP) are to: • slow or stop the revolving door cycle of chronic alcoholics going in and out of detoxification centers, county jail and emergency rooms; • divert this population off the street and into county-funded treatment programs; • significantly reduce the uncompensated costs, time constraints and manpower burdens to San Diego County's healthcare, law enforcement and judicial infrastructure caused by homeless, chronic alcoholics; and • give people who routinely live on the street an opportunity to create a stable mainstream lifestyle.
F53:
The program strategy offers treatment in a joint City/County-funded program in lieu of custody time resulting from a guilty verdict for public intoxication. Once in treatment, clients are provided with wraparound services designed to help their recovery from alcoholism and begin moving them toward re-entering society as a sober community member. Conclusions
F54:
At the Santa Cruz City-County Library System JPA Board meeting on May 2, 2005, a proposal was put forth to close the Felton branch to reduce the upcoming fiscal year 2005-06 budget shortfall of $173,000 by $156,355.39 The community strongly opposed the closing, and the JPA Board voted to keep the branch open. Conclusions Library Administration
Additional Recommendations
63
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Santa Cruz County Human Resources Agency personnel, along with the Board of Supervisors, should be commended for overmatching the required share of the County of Santa Cruz CWS budget.
R2:
The County of Santa Cruz should explore other options for obtaining additional money to supplement Child Welfare Services funds.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should work to re-open the medical clinic at the Rountree facility to reduce the workload of the nursing staff and to cut transportation costs of bringing inmates to the Main Jail for treatment.
R4:
The Main Jail should adopt “bubble” packaging for dispensing medication to save money.
R5:
Jail administrators and staff should be commended for the care and integrity they apply toward the running of this institution.
R6:
The Main Jail should continue to conduct the inmate grievance procedure in the fair and well-documented manner they currently employ. Rountree Medium Security Findings
R7:
Rountree is a well-run facility.
R8:
Rountree inmates can benefit from a variety of programs and educational opportunities.
R9:
The grievance procedures are due for a review and possible update.
R10:
The staff at Rountree performs its duties in a professional manner.
R11:
Closing the medical facility resulted in otherwise eligible inmates being housed in the Main Jail facility because of prescription drug needs. Recommendations
R12:
The staff should be commended for their attractive and well-run facility. Juvenile Hall Findings
R13:
The Home Electronic Monitoring Program should be continued as it reduces the facility population.
R14:
The Board of Supervisors should budget money to upgrade the security system to include security cameras and electronic doors.
R15:
Juvenile Hall is well managed with a caring and diverse staff.
R16:
The Juvenile Hall buildings and grounds are well maintained. - 12 Santa Cruz County Jails Review 2004 – 2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
R17:
Construction of a closed gymnasium would allow for adequate physical activity during poor weather.
R18:
The Home Electronic Monitoring program reduces the Juvenile Hall population.
R19:
For security and safety reasons, electronic doors need to be installed throughout the facility.
R20:
The heating and ventilation system in Juvenile Hall is inadequate. Recommendations
R21:
The California Youth Authority Camp facility was well managed by a professional and well-trained staff.
R22:
The California Youth Authority Fire Camp provided a community service to Santa Cruz County.
R23:
The support provided to the CDF by the CYA wards was a beneficial service to our community.
R24:
The wards once housed there have lost an enriching opportunity to learn an employment skill, which might have kept them from returning to a life of crime. Recommendations
R28:
On December 3, 2005, the population was 55, well within the rated capacity of 96.
R29:
The S.A.F.E. program, a drug rehabilitation program, had 27 participants on December 3, 2005.
R30:
The on-site nursing position was eliminated in February of 2004 due to budget cuts. As a result, the facility cannot house any inmates requiring daily medical injections or psychotropic drug dosing. Other types of prescription drugs are dispensed by a nurse from the Main Jail seven days a week for two hours in the morning. Detention staff estimated that 25-30 inmates on psychotropic drugs could be housed at Rountree if the medical facility were staffed by a full-time, on-site nurse. This would alleviate Main Jail overcrowding.
R31:
Non-urgent medical issues are handled by transporting inmates to the Main Jail medical facility or, on occasion, to Doctors on Duty by officer-driven vehicle. Emergency medical issues are handled by transporting inmates to the Watsonville Community Hospital by either ambulance or officer-driven vehicle.
R32:
An established and documented grievance procedure, dated May 4, 1996, is in place to respond to issues relating to conditions of confinement.
R33:
General housekeeping/cleanliness of the medium security facility was observed to be very good by the touring Grand Jury members. Rountree Minimum Security Facility Findings
R34:
On December 3, 2005, the population was 115, well within the rated capacity of 162. - 8 Santa Cruz County Jails Review 2004 – 2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
R35:
There have been 13 escapes (walkaways) since the seating of the 2004-2005 Grand Jury, up from seven during the term of the 2003-2004 Grand Jury.
R36:
There are ample opportunities for inmates to participate in numerous programs during incarceration. A partial list follows. • Education: • English as a Second Language (ESL) • General Equivalency Diploma (GED)/ESL • GED Testing • Self Improvement: • Alcoholics Anonymous • Narcotics Anonymous • Bible study/church • AIDS awareness class/testing • Substance abuse • Tobacco cessation • Vocational: • Auto body and paint • Computer skills • Building maintenance and landscaping
R37:
A designated area outside the facility is maintained for family visits.
R38:
An established and documented grievance procedure, dated May 4, 1994, is in place to deal with issues relating to conditions of confinement. Conclusions
R50:
This facility has a State Board of Corrections rating of 42 detainees. It has an average daily population of 24.7 (fiscal year).
R51:
This facility has passed inspection by the State Board of Corrections, the local Fire Department and Nutritional Health.
R52:
The County Board of Education provides school programs for Juvenile Hall wards.
R53:
The average length of stay in Juvenile Hall is between nine and 11 days.
R54:
Counseling and substance abuse treatment are part of the Juvenile Probation process. Juvenile Hall is not a treatment program but has a drug counselor on staff 20 hours per week. Mental health services are provided 80 hours per week. Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 11 2004 – 2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
R55:
Juveniles are housed in two units. One of the units houses boys who are more “criminally sophisticated.” The other unit houses girls and less “criminally sophisticated” boys.
R56:
Juveniles are given an orientation to the facility upon intake. They are given a list of the rules and consequences which they must acknowledge and sign.
R57:
Rules and grievance procedures are posted, and a box is provided to receive the grievance forms. The box is checked twice daily.
R58:
Juveniles are assigned to a housing unit based on a classification system that includes consideration of: • age; • gender; and • type of crime.
R59:
Parents are charged $24 per day while their child is in Juvenile Hall.
R60:
Juvenile Probation has a Home Electronic Monitoring Program which allows for early release. Two counselors make daily visits to wards released on this program.
R61:
This facility houses juveniles between the ages of 12 and 18. Children under the age of 12 are the responsibility of Child Protective Services and are not housed at Juvenile Hall.
R62:
This facility does not have a covered gymnasium.
R63:
The detainees’ rooms are small, and they contain: • a bed; • a sink; • a drinking fountain; and • a toilet.
R64:
Juvenile Hall does not have adequate heating, ventilation or air conditioning. The walls of the detainees’ rooms are made of cement blocks. They retain extreme temperatures. Juvenile Hall staff report that the inadequacy of the heating and air conditioning is not compatible with good public health.
R65:
There are electronic doors entering the facility and the courtyard, but other areas do not have electronic doors. Staff reported that electronic doors throughout the facility would improve the response time in an emergency. Conclusions
R66:
This facility had a State Board of Corrections rated capacity of 85. Prior to closure, its average daily population was approximately 46.
R67:
The wards were all at least 18 years old and sentenced to the California Youth Authority, where they would stay until they were 25 years old or had completed their sentences.
R68:
The wards had already served a portion of their sentences in a locked California Department of Corrections Youth Authority facility before being moved to the Fire Camp.
R69:
This facility provided a full high school program.
R70:
This facility employed seven counselors to work with the wards to address any emotional problems they may have had and to prepare them for release back into the community.
R71:
Many of the wards were trained to work on a fire crew, which could prepare them for employment upon their release.
R72:
The grievance procedure was well defined and taken seriously by the staff. Both written and verbal responses were provided to the wards.
R73:
There had never been a suicide or suicide attempt at this facility.
R74:
This was a minimal security facility and the wards slept in a dorm setting with shared showers and toilet facilities. The heating system was old and unable to heat the facility adequately.
R75:
Meals were shared in a central dining area and the food served was plentiful and well prepared.
R76:
There were 22 escapes during the past year. All were “walkaways” from job sites. Conclusions
R20-54:
(August 30, 2005) City of Scotts 1-3, 5-9, 11-18, 1-9 60 Days Valley 20-54 (August 30, 2005) Library Joint 1-3, 5-9, 11-18, 1-9 90 Days Powers Authority 20-54 (September 30, Board 2005) Santa Cruz City- 1-3, 5-9, 11-18, 1-9 90 Days County Library 20-54 (September 30, System 2005) Ready to Check Out? - 23 Santa Cruz City-County Library System
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
54 findings
F1:
It has been the practice of the county to request proposals for independent audit services every three or four years.
F2:
The current independent audit firm has provided services for seven years.
F3:
The 2001-2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report recommended that retention of an independent auditor should be reviewed every three years and changed at least every six years.
F4:
This Request for Proposal process was to select an independent auditor to prepare an annual audit for the County of Santa Cruz beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005. The contract would be awarded for one to three years, whichever would be the most cost effective for the county. - 2 Counting Your Dollars: Contracting for the Services of an Independent Auditor of County Finances 2004 – 2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report
F5:
The independent audit firm provides various reports to the Santa Cruz County Audit Committee throughout the year. These reports require County Audit Committee review.
F6:
The Request for Proposal process began with preparation of the bid documents that: • outlined the requirements of the county; • described the basis on which the bids would be judged; and • requested the qualifications of the bidders. Invitations to Bid were sent to 44 qualifying accounting firms, locally and throughout northern and central California. Four bidders attended the bidders’ conference on December 10, 2004. Proposals were received on January 14, 2005 from all four firms present at the bidders’ conference. The proposals were evaluated according to the criteria established in the bid documents as outlined in Appendix A. Using this comprehensive criteria, the County Audit Committee recommended awarding the contract to the firm that best met the county’s needs: Bartig, Basler, and Ray.
F7:
Two members of the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury are active members of the County Audit Committee. Conclusions
F8:
Rountree inmates can benefit from a variety of programs and educational opportunities.
F9:
The grievance procedures are due for a review and possible update.
F10:
The staff at Rountree performs its duties in a professional manner.
F11:
Closing the medical facility resulted in otherwise eligible inmates being housed in the Main Jail facility because of prescription drug needs.
F12:
The Blaine Street Jail buildings and grounds are attractive and well maintained.
F13:
The facility is well staffed, and staff appears to be attuned to the needs of the inmates.
F14:
There is a variety of useful activities available to the inmates.
F15:
Juvenile Hall is well managed with a caring and diverse staff.
F16:
The Juvenile Hall buildings and grounds are well maintained. - 12 Santa Cruz County Jails Review
F17:
Construction of a closed gymnasium would allow for adequate physical activity during poor weather.
F18:
The Home Electronic Monitoring program reduces the Juvenile Hall population.
F19:
For security and safety reasons, electronic doors need to be installed throughout the facility.
F20:
The heating and ventilation system in Juvenile Hall is inadequate.
F21:
The California Youth Authority Camp facility was well managed by a professional and well-trained staff.
F22:
The California Youth Authority Fire Camp provided a community service to Santa Cruz County.
F23:
The support provided to the CDF by the CYA wards was a beneficial service to our community.
F24:
The wards once housed there have lost an enriching opportunity to learn an employment skill, which might have kept them from returning to a life of crime.
F25:
Services available to Medi-Cruz recipients are: • primary health care in clinics; • X-rays; • pharmaceuticals; • emergency care; and • hospital (in-patient) care.
F26:
Medi-Cruz does not cover jailed inmates. The medical costs for incarcerated patients come from the Detention Jail budget. Even if they are active Medi-Cruz patients, services cease after they are booked according to HSA personnel.
F27:
According to Dominican Hospital personnel, there is a staff member at Dominican Hospital to assist people to sign up for Medi-Cruz and Medi-Cal. This position is not staffed 24 hours a day. Shades of Gray: - 7 Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital/Jail Medical Facility 2004-2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
F28:
Patients determined eligible for Medi-Cruz services can have treatment paid for retroactively. However, it is up to the client to cooperate and follow through with the paperwork for this to be accomplished.
F29:
The medical budget for detention facilities is $3 million. The three largest components of the detention medical budget are: • nursing/medical care (salaries) within the jail; • services delivered at the county health clinics (X-rays, pharmacy and laboratory are the largest intra-agency cost); and • outside medical care (Doctors On Duty or dental care).
F30:
CHIP funds may not be used to support health services provided to persons detained in a county or city jail or other correctional facility (W&I Code Section 16995).8
F31:
HSA personnel believed that claims for indigent detainees might be partially covered by CHIP money. The amount of funding the county receives from CHIP doesn’t allow for 100 percent reimbursement of all of those claims. The total 2004-2005 CHIP allocation for Santa Cruz County is $77,214.
F32:
According to HSA personnel, there is disagreement over who is financially responsible for blood draws and Breathalyzer tests done on detainees to determine drug and alcohol levels. The law is not specific, and it is an area of contention.
F33:
The jail does not do Breathalyzer tests or blood draws on arrested subjects. Law enforcement officers perform Breathalyzer tests. The hospital does not have Breathalyzer equipment. Nurses at the Main Jail do not take blood alcohol levels. They cannot collect evidence.
F34:
Hospital personnel must perform blood draws. As a result, this takes away from staff time to collect samples. Hospital staff is often called to testify in court regarding collection of such samples as evidence. Staff are not reimbursed for court appearances. Procedural Alternatives
F35:
A Santa Cruz County elected official says that legislation should be changed. People who are eligible for state medical benefits should not lose those benefits when incarcerated.
F36:
According to a Dominican Hospital medical staff member, patients could be better handled at the jail if there were an infirmary on site. Once they are cleared medically, they should be able to be monitored on site at the jail. Application for California Healthcare for Indigents Program Funding for Fiscal Year 2004-5, May 4,
F37:
Detention Health Services intends to clarify in writing the criteria for transporting individuals to emergency departments for medical clearance prior to bringing them to jail. It appears that many people being brought to emergency departments could be brought to the jail directly by police officers. Training for police also appears necessary so that individuals are brought to the appropriate location.9
F38:
Detention Medical staff is also evaluating current staffing patterns and hours to better serve this population in a cost-effective and clinically appropriate manner. Additional staffing may be required on Friday and Saturday nights for medical direction of these cases. This is a peak time for cases with alcohol and drug involvement. 10
F39:
The Board of Corrections’ rated capacity is 42 inmates. As of May 4, 2005, the facility had 22 inmates.
F40:
There have been six escapes (walkaways) in the past year.
F41:
There have been no deaths in the past year.
F42:
Fire drills are held monthly.
F43:
There are 25 rooms, five of which do not house inmates. These are used for storage or office space. The inmates’ rooms house up to two inmates per room.
F44:
Meals are prepared by inmates from menus provided by the county dietitian.
F45:
There are two classrooms in the facility. Attendance at these classes is voluntary. The classes offered are: • GED (General Equivalency Degree); • job skills; • Pajaro Valley Substance Abuse Prevention and Student Assistance; • exit plans; • computers; • crocheting and knitting; • parenting skills; • communication skills; • women’s health; • Narcotics Anonymous; • Alcoholics Anonymous; and • Bible study, various church groups.
F46:
Grievances are handled through a grievance form. An inmate can request this form from a staff member. If the grievance concerns a staff member, the grievance is handled with that staff member and the director. If the grievance concerns other areas, - 10 Santa Cruz County Jails Review it is discussed with the director. Grievances are usually handled upon receipt of the form.
F47:
Each inmate is given a set behavior rules. If there is a violation of these rules, the following steps are taken: • a verbal warning is issued; • a written warning is issued; • privileges are lost; • extra work detail is assigned; • counseling is scheduled with the director; and • if there are too many infractions, the inmate is sent to the Main Jail.
F48:
Both the interior and exterior of the building are clean and neatly maintained. The outside area is in a garden setting and used by inmates for activities such as reading and socializing and is also used for family visits.
F49:
There is one officer on duty for all shifts, 24 hours a day. Conclusions
F50:
Under the Serial Inebriate Program, inebriates who are arrested three times go to detoxification or jail. Serial Inebriate Program in San Diego County
F51:
Started in January 2000, the Serial Inebriate Program is an innovative effort involving the City and County of San Diego, the San Diego Police and Sheriff's Departments, San Diego County Superior Courts, San Diego County Health and Human Services and Mental Health Systems, Inc. A number of agencies and treatment partners work in tandem with SIP. This collaborative effort provides a less expensive and more appropriate alternative to emergency departments and jails for treatment of homeless chronic inebriates. This program has had a dramatic effect on San Diego emergency - 10 Shades of Gray: Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital/Jail Medical Facility 2004-2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report departments.12 In San Diego, the first year of the program saw 144 people enter the program. A year later, 58 percent had had no contact with police since leaving treatment.
F52:
The goals of the Serial Inebriate Program (SIP) are to: • slow or stop the revolving door cycle of chronic alcoholics going in and out of detoxification centers, county jail and emergency rooms; • divert this population off the street and into county-funded treatment programs; • significantly reduce the uncompensated costs, time constraints and manpower burdens to San Diego County's healthcare, law enforcement and judicial infrastructure caused by homeless, chronic alcoholics; and • give people who routinely live on the street an opportunity to create a stable mainstream lifestyle.
F53:
The program strategy offers treatment in a joint City/County-funded program in lieu of custody time resulting from a guilty verdict for public intoxication. Once in treatment, clients are provided with wraparound services designed to help their recovery from alcoholism and begin moving them toward re-entering society as a sober community member. Conclusions
F54:
At the Santa Cruz City-County Library System JPA Board meeting on May 2, 2005, a proposal was put forth to close the Felton branch to reduce the upcoming fiscal year 2005-06 budget shortfall of $173,000 by $156,355.39 The community strongly opposed the closing, and the JPA Board voted to keep the branch open. Conclusions Library Administration
Additional Recommendations
63
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County of Santa Cruz Auditor should continue to actively seek and qualify new bidders for future invitations for proposals and should update the current list.
R2:
Review of the contract for independent audit services or invitation to bid should be scheduled every three years with no one firm providing services for more than two consecutive three-year contracts.
R3:
The County of Santa Cruz should continue to notify the Grand Jury of County Audit Committee activities.
R4:
The County Audit Committee should continue to meet at least twice each year, more frequently if needed. Counting Your Dollars: - 3 Contracting for the Services of an Independent Auditor of County Finances
R5:
Jail administrators and staff should be commended for the care and integrity they apply toward the running of this institution.
R6:
The Main Jail should continue to conduct the inmate grievance procedure in the fair and well-documented manner they currently employ. Rountree Medium Security Findings
R7:
Rountree is a well-run facility.
R8:
Rountree inmates can benefit from a variety of programs and educational opportunities.
R9:
The grievance procedures are due for a review and possible update.
R10:
The staff at Rountree performs its duties in a professional manner.
R11:
Closing the medical facility resulted in otherwise eligible inmates being housed in the Main Jail facility because of prescription drug needs. Recommendations
R12:
The staff should be commended for their attractive and well-run facility. Juvenile Hall Findings
R13:
The Home Electronic Monitoring Program should be continued as it reduces the facility population.
R14:
The Board of Supervisors should budget money to upgrade the security system to include security cameras and electronic doors.
R15:
Juvenile Hall is well managed with a caring and diverse staff.
R16:
The Juvenile Hall buildings and grounds are well maintained. - 12 Santa Cruz County Jails Review
R17:
Construction of a closed gymnasium would allow for adequate physical activity during poor weather.
R18:
The Home Electronic Monitoring program reduces the Juvenile Hall population.
R19:
For security and safety reasons, electronic doors need to be installed throughout the facility.
R20:
The heating and ventilation system in Juvenile Hall is inadequate. Recommendations
R21:
The California Youth Authority Camp facility was well managed by a professional and well-trained staff.
R22:
The California Youth Authority Fire Camp provided a community service to Santa Cruz County.
R23:
The support provided to the CDF by the CYA wards was a beneficial service to our community.
R24:
The wards once housed there have lost an enriching opportunity to learn an employment skill, which might have kept them from returning to a life of crime. Recommendations
R28:
On December 3, 2005, the population was 55, well within the rated capacity of 96.
R29:
The S.A.F.E. program, a drug rehabilitation program, had 27 participants on December 3, 2005.
R30:
The on-site nursing position was eliminated in February of 2004 due to budget cuts. As a result, the facility cannot house any inmates requiring daily medical injections or psychotropic drug dosing. Other types of prescription drugs are dispensed by a nurse from the Main Jail seven days a week for two hours in the morning. Detention staff estimated that 25-30 inmates on psychotropic drugs could be housed at Rountree if the medical facility were staffed by a full-time, on-site nurse. This would alleviate Main Jail overcrowding.
R31:
Non-urgent medical issues are handled by transporting inmates to the Main Jail medical facility or, on occasion, to Doctors on Duty by officer-driven vehicle. Emergency medical issues are handled by transporting inmates to the Watsonville Community Hospital by either ambulance or officer-driven vehicle.
R32:
An established and documented grievance procedure, dated May 4, 1996, is in place to respond to issues relating to conditions of confinement.
R33:
General housekeeping/cleanliness of the medium security facility was observed to be very good by the touring Grand Jury members. Rountree Minimum Security Facility Findings
R34:
On December 3, 2005, the population was 115, well within the rated capacity of 162. - 8 Santa Cruz County Jails Review
R35:
There have been 13 escapes (walkaways) since the seating of the 2004-2005 Grand Jury, up from seven during the term of the 2003-2004 Grand Jury.
R36:
There are ample opportunities for inmates to participate in numerous programs during incarceration. A partial list follows. • Education: • English as a Second Language (ESL) • General Equivalency Diploma (GED)/ESL • GED Testing • Self Improvement: • Alcoholics Anonymous • Narcotics Anonymous • Bible study/church • AIDS awareness class/testing • Substance abuse • Tobacco cessation • Vocational: • Auto body and paint • Computer skills • Building maintenance and landscaping
R37:
A designated area outside the facility is maintained for family visits.
R38:
An established and documented grievance procedure, dated May 4, 1994, is in place to deal with issues relating to conditions of confinement. Conclusions
R50:
This facility has a State Board of Corrections rating of 42 detainees. It has an average daily population of 24.7 (fiscal year).
R51:
This facility has passed inspection by the State Board of Corrections, the local Fire Department and Nutritional Health.
R52:
The County Board of Education provides school programs for Juvenile Hall wards.
R53:
The average length of stay in Juvenile Hall is between nine and 11 days.
R54:
Counseling and substance abuse treatment are part of the Juvenile Probation process. Juvenile Hall is not a treatment program but has a drug counselor on staff 20 hours per week. Mental health services are provided 80 hours per week. Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 11
R55:
Juveniles are housed in two units. One of the units houses boys who are more “criminally sophisticated.” The other unit houses girls and less “criminally sophisticated” boys.
R56:
Juveniles are given an orientation to the facility upon intake. They are given a list of the rules and consequences which they must acknowledge and sign.
R57:
Rules and grievance procedures are posted, and a box is provided to receive the grievance forms. The box is checked twice daily.
R58:
Juveniles are assigned to a housing unit based on a classification system that includes consideration of: • age; • gender; and • type of crime.
R59:
Parents are charged $24 per day while their child is in Juvenile Hall.
R60:
Juvenile Probation has a Home Electronic Monitoring Program which allows for early release. Two counselors make daily visits to wards released on this program.
R61:
This facility houses juveniles between the ages of 12 and 18. Children under the age of 12 are the responsibility of Child Protective Services and are not housed at Juvenile Hall.
R62:
This facility does not have a covered gymnasium.
R63:
The detainees’ rooms are small, and they contain: • a bed; • a sink; • a drinking fountain; and • a toilet.
R64:
Juvenile Hall does not have adequate heating, ventilation or air conditioning. The walls of the detainees’ rooms are made of cement blocks. They retain extreme temperatures. Juvenile Hall staff report that the inadequacy of the heating and air conditioning is not compatible with good public health.
R65:
There are electronic doors entering the facility and the courtyard, but other areas do not have electronic doors. Staff reported that electronic doors throughout the facility would improve the response time in an emergency. Conclusions
R66:
This facility had a State Board of Corrections rated capacity of 85. Prior to closure, its average daily population was approximately 46.
R67:
The wards were all at least 18 years old and sentenced to the California Youth Authority, where they would stay until they were 25 years old or had completed their sentences.
R68:
The wards had already served a portion of their sentences in a locked California Department of Corrections Youth Authority facility before being moved to the Fire Camp.
R69:
This facility provided a full high school program.
R70:
This facility employed seven counselors to work with the wards to address any emotional problems they may have had and to prepare them for release back into the community.
R71:
Many of the wards were trained to work on a fire crew, which could prepare them for employment upon their release.
R72:
The grievance procedure was well defined and taken seriously by the staff. Both written and verbal responses were provided to the wards.
R73:
There had never been a suicide or suicide attempt at this facility.
R74:
This was a minimal security facility and the wards slept in a dorm setting with shared showers and toilet facilities. The heating system was old and unable to heat the facility adequately.
R75:
Meals were shared in a central dining area and the food served was plentiful and well prepared.
R76:
There were 22 escapes during the past year. All were “walkaways” from job sites. Conclusions
R20-54:
(August 30, 2005) City of Scotts 1-3, 5-9, 11-18, 1-9 60 Days Valley 20-54 (August 30, 2005) Library Joint 1-3, 5-9, 11-18, 1-9 90 Days Powers Authority 20-54 (September 30, Board 2005) Santa Cruz City- 1-3, 5-9, 11-18, 1-9 90 Days County Library 20-54 (September 30, System 2005) Ready to Check Out? - 23 Santa Cruz City-County Library System This page left intentionally blank. - 24 Ready to Check Out? Santa Cruz City-County Library System Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report: Section 6 Special Districts Committee Reports
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
59 findings
F1:
Santa Cruz County has limited water resources. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. - 2 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t The City generally agrees with this finding if it means that the supplies that have been developed throughout the County are strained by current water demands. It is important to note, however, that there remain water resources that have yet to be developed in this County, i.e. desalination and reclaimed water. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. Agree generally, especially if the finding is intended to highlight the contrast between existing water demand on the one hand, and useable or developed water resources on the other. Response: Local Agency Formation Commission AGREES. LAFCO’s 2001 compilation of the county’s water resources is posted on LAFCO’s web site: http://santacruzlafco.org/pages/reports/waterpolicies2001.pdf. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency AGREES. Agree generally, especially if the finding is intended to highlight the contrast between existing water demand on the one hand, and useable or developed water resources on the other. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District AGREES. The District agrees with this finding, if it is intended to mean that water resources within Santa Cruz County have definable limits. Response: Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County would add that the present use of groundwater resources is not sustainable for some groundwater basins. There is abundant surface water available in average and wet winters. Storage of surface water resources is inadequate at present and storage of surface water in groundwater basins for distribution to multiple stakeholders has not been adequately analyzed in the Santa Margarita groundwater basin. Response: Scotts Valley Water District AGREES. This finding would be better stated, “Santa Cruz County has limited fresh water resources.” Response: Soquel Creek Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. While the District generally agrees with this finding, it would be better stated, “Santa Cruz County has limited fresh water resources.” Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 3
F2:
Using recycled water can make fresh water available for other uses. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The City generally agrees with this finding when there is an enough demand for irrigation water that substituting the reclaimed water for potable water is cost justified. The blanket statement made in this finding does oversimplify the matter without recognizing the differences in water uses that exist throughout the County. In the case of the Santa Cruz Wastewater Plant, it currently treats >200,000 gallons of effluent per day to a higher treatment standard and that water is used as process water within the plant for washdown and process. That amount of water savings directly offset the plant’s previous use of potable water for those processes. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. The more accurate statement might be: recycling can expand the useable water supply. Response: Local Agency Formation Commission AGREES. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency AGREES. Agree generally, though the more accurate statement might be: recycling can expand the useable water supply. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District AGREES. The District agrees with this finding, if it is intended to mean that the use of recycled water pursuant to all applicable codes and regulations can augment existing water supply resources. Response: Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County would add that more could be done by the various Special Water Districts and suppliers to promote the use of recycled water either regionally or within the jurisdictional boundary of those entities in charge of developing the recycled water. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This comment is simplistic and should be expanded. In fact, using recycled water can also be the foundation of an in-lieu groundwater recharge program (such as here at the District, where the program has been implemented to begin mitigating past overdraft of the groundwater basin). - 4 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Response: Soquel Creek Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This comment assumes that fresh water would thereby be available for other uses. Soquel Creek Water District has determined that our current groundwater supplies are limited. A current study to determine whether satellite reclamation plants would be a feasible and practical approach for large irrigation users within the District is being undertaken as part of the overall need to reduce groundwater use.
F3:
Special Water Districts are autonomous with their own elected boards. Response: Local Agency Formation Commission AGREES. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency AGREES. The PVWMA is an autonomous special purpose district. Its board of directors consists of four elected members, plus three appointed members. These appointments are made by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, Monterey County Board of Supervisors, and the Watsonville City Council, respectively. Appointees must derive at least 51% of their income from agricultural production. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District AGREES. This finding would be better stated, “County Water Districts are autonomous with their own elected Board of Directors”. Response: Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Scotts Valley Water District AGREES. This finding would be better stated, “County Water Districts are autonomous with their own elected board of directors.” Response: Soquel Creek Water District AGREES. This finding would be better stated, “County Water Districts are autonomous with their own elected board of directors.”
F4:
The City of Santa Cruz has its own water department. It serves the citizens of Santa Cruz and those of the unincorporated area of Live Oak. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. The City agrees with this finding with the correction that there are many more outside-city areas that are served by the City Water Department including Santa Cruz Gardens, parts of Capitola, Rollingwoods, Carbonera, Pasatiempo, etc. The Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 5 service area is roughly defined as serving from just below Davenport to just beyond 41st Avenue and from Henry Cowell Redwood State Park to the Monterey Bay. Response: Local Agency Formation Commission AGREES. Its service area also includes other unincorporated areas north and west of the city limits.
F5:
The City of Capitola’s residents receive their water from an autonomous special district, the Soquel Creek Water District. This district also serves the unincorporated areas of Soquel and Aptos. Response: Local Agency Formation Commission PARTIALLY AGREES. We understand that the Soquel Creek Water District is providing a more detailed description of their service area. Response: Soquel Creek Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. The District’s boundary is generally along the eastern side of 41st Ave. City of Capitola residents and businesses located outside of the District are served by the City of Santa Cruz Water Department. The District also does not serve all of Soquel and Aptos. There are private wells and mutual water companies within these communities and Central Water District serves a large portion of Aptos in the vicinity of Freedom Blvd. Soquel Creek Water District’s service area extends to La Selva Beach and Cañon del Sol.
F6:
Two special districts serve the City of Scotts Valley: the Scotts Valley Water District and the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. Response: Local Agency Formation Commission AGREES. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District AGREES. Response: Scotts Valley Water District AGREES. This finding would be better stated, “Two special districts serve drinking water to the City of Scotts Valley: the Scotts Valley Water District and the San Lorenzo Valley Water District, both County Water Districts. In addition, there is a portion of the City served by the Mañana Woods Mutual Water Company and still other sections are on private wells. Several major non-potable demands are met with water pumped from private wells, including the industrial washing at Hanson Quarries (now being phased out), the landscaping at the local 9-hole golf course and landscaping and decorative impoundments at several mobile home parks.” - 6 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t
F7:
Private water companies also serve parts of the San Lorenzo Valley. Response: Local Agency Formation Commission AGREES. Investor-owned and mutual water companies are located throughout the county, principally in suburban and rural areas. The San Lorenzo Valley has a concentration of these companies. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District AGREES.
F8:
The City of Watsonville has its own water department, which buys its water from a special district, the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA) to supply its residents. Watsonville-area residents outside the city limits are also supplied by the PVWMA. The agency crosses county boundaries and serves customers in neighboring counties. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. Overlying the Pajaro Valley groundwater basin, the PVWMA territory includes southern Santa Cruz County, northern Monterey County, and a small portion of San Benito County in the vicinity of Aromas. The agency “sells” water to a limited number of agricultural customers, but it does not “sell” or directly “supply” water to the City of Watsonville or to individuals outside the City for residential use. The City of Watsonville provides water to residents within city limits, as well as to numerous customers residing outside of the city limits. The PVWMA is, however, developing regional water projects, which collectively will balance the groundwater basin, thereby indirectly supplying the City and all other Pajaro Valley groundwater users. To finance these projects, the agency collects an augmentation charge, a volume-based fee for pumping groundwater. The City, residents outside the City, farmers, and all other groundwater pumpers pay this augmentation charge. Response: Local Agency Formation Commission PARTIALLY AGREES. The PVWMA’s territory includes parts of Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito counties from La Selva Beach to Elkhorn Slough to Aromas. This boundary is an approximation of the area that overlies the Pajaro Valley aquifer. The PVWMA’s primary duty is to manage the overdrafted aquifer. Their activities involve developing additional wholesale supplies via recharge and re-use within the area, as well as importing water from outside the area. The City of Watsonville produces its water from wells and stream diversions, and does not purchase its water from the PVWMA. Most other water users in the Pajaro Valley directly produce their Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 7 own water, typically through agricultural and domestic wells. They do not buy water from the PVWMA. The PVWMA can explain their completed projects and plans for development of supplemental water in order to reduce the pumping of the aquifer. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. Overlying the Pajaro Valley groundwater basin, the PVWMA territory includes southern Santa Cruz County, northern Monterey County, and a small portion of San Benito County in the vicinity of Aromas. The agency “sells” water to a limited number of agricultural customers, but it does not “sell” or directly “supply” water to the City of Watsonville or to individuals outside the City for residential use. The agency is, however, developing regional water projects, which collectively will balance the groundwater basin, thereby indirectly supplying the City and all other Pajaro Valley groundwater users. To finance these projects, the agency collects an augmentation charge, a volume-based fee for pumping groundwater. The City, residents outside the City, farmers, and all other groundwater pumpers pay this augmentation charge.
F9:
Many county residents receive their water from private wells and small private water associations. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. In the Pajaro Valley, residents outside public water service areas rely on private wells, shared wells, and a variety of private water associations and companies. Response: Local Agency Formation Commission AGREES. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency AGREES. In the Pajaro Valley, residents outside public water service areas rely on private wells, shared wells and a variety of private water associations and companies. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. The District agrees with this finding with the following qualifications: a) The District has no information regarding the specific number of county residents who receive their water from private wells and small private water associations. b) The term “private water associations” should be amended to read “mutual water companies”. - 8 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Response: Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County adds that the majority of private wells and small water associations share use from regional groundwater basins commonly used by the Special Water Districts. Response: Scotts Valley Water District AGREES. This finding would be better stated, “Many county residents receive their water from private wells and small private water companies.” In fact, the number of private wells has a high cumulative impact on the current state of the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin. The issue of granting well permits to individual homes within a water service area of a water district or water company circumvents existing conservation programs, encourages high pumping and adds to the current water crisis. This issue has been discussed in detail at several meetings of the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin Advisory Committee, in which the City of Scotts Valley, the Scotts Valley Water District, the San Lorenzo Valley Water District and the County of Santa Cruz meet to discuss groundwater issues. Response: Soquel Creek Water District AGREES. This finding would be better stated, “Many county residents receive their water from private wells and small private water associations and/or companies.” Aquifers
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Several types of agencies provide water and sewage disposal: private, special districts, city-owned and combinations of these.
F10:
Scotts Valley and the San Lorenzo Valley water districts share a common aquifer. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District AGREES. Response: Scotts Valley Water District AGREES. This finding is simplistic and should be expanded. First of all, there are many other users of the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin, including the Lompico County Water District and numerous private pumpers. Moreover, the groundwater basin is made up of at least two major aquifer units, the Santa Margarita sandstone and the Lompico sandstone. Water is found in other geologic units (such as the Monterey shale and the Locatelli units) but generally these are lower-yield units. In addition, while the aquifer basin is a common one, there are apparently many subareas that act nearly independently. Since the exact relationships between these subareas and different water-bearing units are little understood, the State of California has tentatively granted the District $225,000 to revise, expand and upgrade its groundwater model. This project is being directed by a Technical Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 9 Advisory Committee made up of staff members from the County of Santa Cruz, San Lorenzo Valley Water District, and the Scotts Valley Water District. The City of Scotts Valley, Lompico County Water District and the Mañana Woods Mutual Water Company have open invitations to participate in the TAC and its meetings but have so far declined due to lack of staff with the appropriate hydrogeological or modeling background.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Many separate districts are struggling with similar water problems.
F11:
The Soquel Creek Water District’s aquifer is used not only by the district, but also by the City of Santa Cruz, Cabrillo College and private homes. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The City generally agrees with this finding if it is intended to state that Soquel Creek Water District, the City of Santa Cruz, Cabrillo College, and many private users draw water from the same Purisima Aquifer. If the intent of the statement is to imply that the aquifer is the property of the Soquel Creek Water District, the City disagrees. Response: Soquel Creek Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. The statement implies that the District utilizes a single aquifer and that it has some ownership over that resource. A more correct statement would read: “The Soquel Creek Water District receives its groundwater from two sources: The Purisima Formation underlies the western portion of the District; and the Aromas Red Sands is the primary water supply for the portion of the District’s service area southeast of Aptos Creek. The City of Santa Cruz, Central Water District, Cabrillo College, Soquel High School and private pumpers also have wells in the Purisima Formation. The Aromas Red Sands aquifer extends through the Pajaro Valley and many agencies and private pumpers rely on this source of water, including Central Water District, the City of Watsonville, and mutual water companies as well as private agricultural and domestic wells.” Wastewater Treatment
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Local water agencies sometimes compete instead of cooperate in using scarce water resources.
F12:
The City of Santa Cruz's regional wastewater treatment plant treats the sewage of the City of Santa Cruz and much of the mid-county area. This secondarily treated water flows from the plant into the bay through an underwater pipe that dumps it one and one-half miles offshore. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. The area served by this regional wastewater plant is greater than just the mid- county and City. Additionally, the water is not “dumped” into the bay Rather, the secondary sewer effluent “flows” into the ocean, not the bay. - 10 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Building tertiary water treatment systems is expensive, complex and subject to many barriers to successful use and ongoing maintenance.
F13:
The sewage plant in the City of Santa Cruz was the second to the last in the state to go to secondary treatment and this was only after losing a court battle with the federal government. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department DISAGREES. The statement that the City of Santa Cruz was the second to last in the state to go to secondary treatment implies there are no advanced primary plants that still exist in the State of California which is incorrect. The statement that the City of Santa Cruz went to secondary treatment only after losing a court battle with the Federal Government is incorrect. The City Council at that time engaged in lengthy public process where it debated whether or not to concur with previous Council decisions to apply for a waiver from secondary treatment that would allow the City to continue to treat its sewage to an advanced primary standard. As a result of that public process, Council opted to apply for a waiver and at the same time raised sewer rates to fund the construction of a secondary treatment facility. Later the City dropped the waiver application and instead entered in to a consent decree with the state which set up a time line to complete construction of a secondary treatment facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Building tertiary water treatment systems is also a worthwhile re-use of a valuable resource. It has the potential to be of great value in helping the county cope with its ongoing water needs.
F14:
About 250 tons per week of bio-solids, or sludge, are trucked to a large composting farm in the San Joaquin Valley to be processed and sold for use on non-food crops such as cotton. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Residential usage of recycled water for a single-family dwelling is difficult to maintain. The present rate structure does not motivate the property owner to implement it.
F15:
Many county residents have private or package septic systems. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City does not maintain information on the number or location of septic systems. Maps of sewer service areas do suggest, however, that there are likely many septic systems in the Pajaro Valley area. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The agency does not maintain or have access to information on the number or location of septic systems. Maps of sewer service areas do suggest, however, that there are likely many septic systems in the Pajaro Valley area. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors AGREES. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 11 Response: Scotts Valley Water District NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The District has no current information on such systems. Response: Soquel Creek Water District NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The District has no current information on such systems. The source water assessments completed by the District did identify septic systems in proximity to District wells, as these can be a source of groundwater contamination. Problems
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The present rate structure in Scotts Valley is not sufficient to encourage existing non-residential customers to convert to recycled water for landscaping.
F16:
Between the years of 1991 and 2003, the water levels in the San Lorenzo Valley Water District have fallen approximately 90 feet in the wells of the southern distribution area. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
A great potential water source is being wasted in Scotts Valley while various agencies argue about who is responsible for the problems. The city’s expensive tertiary-treatment plant is under-used, customers are paying higher rates and hundreds of millions of gallons of water are still being sent to the ocean. Recommendations
F17:
The City of Santa Cruz suffers from a lack of water supply capacity, particularly during drought years. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES.
F18:
The water level in the Scotts Valley Water District's aquifers has been dropping for decades. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. The District has some inherent conflicts with Finding 18 and would be more accurate to state, “Historical records of water levels (called ‘hydrographs’) in Scotts Valley Water District’s production wells show that the water level has declined in each area since records were first documented in 1984. In some subareas, the water table appears to be stabilizing due to the District’s groundwater management program but, to date, any actual improvements have been either relatively short in duration or, in the longer run, only temporary.”
F19:
The Soquel Creek aquifer has been degrading since 1955. Water officials say the district’s aquifer is consistently overdrawn. Currently, it has the worst saline level in the 20 years they have been keeping records. Response: Soquel Creek Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. - 12 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t The first sentence of the finding is ambiguous. As stated in the response to finding #11, there is no “Soquel Creek aquifer.” There is very limited information about groundwater conditions for the area underlying the Soquel Creek Water District prior to 1967 when the USGS completed a report titled Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of the Soquel-Aptos Area, Santa Cruz County, California (Hickey), and the District is not aware of evidence that local groundwater resources have been degrading since 1955. Since no Soquel Creek Water District officials were interviewed for this report, the source and context of the statement that district officials say the aquifer is consistently overdrawn is unknown. Soquel Creek Water District initiated the first ongoing groundwater level and seawater intrusion monitoring program for the Soquel-Aptos Basin approximately 20 years ago. Groundwater conditions have fluctuated over the subsequent years, and in the mid-1990’s, the District determined that the cumulative pumping from the basin was exceeding sustainable yield. While numerous hydrogeological studies confirm the conclusion that sustainable yield is less than current pumping levels, water quality in the Purisima Formation has remained generally stable without showing evidence of currently having seawater intrusion at the coast (the cause of what the report refers to as “saline level”). The District has long-monitored what is believed to be a naturally occurring seawater wedge in the Seascape/La Selva Beach area. The monitoring wells in this vicinity have generally shown an increasing trend in chloride concentrations as production from nearby wells (both public and private) has increased. Increasing chloride level is an indicator of seawater advancement. Based on recommendations in a report presented by Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers in April 2004, the District immediately reduced pumping from wells in this vicinity and is pursuing redistributing pumping to wells that are further inland and northwest. The District also contacted private well owners in the area and is working cooperatively with them to reduce their pumping. In the Purisima-A aquifer, although chloride concentrations have not become problematic, evidence of a saltwater pathway, rising chloride concentrations at the District’s Garnet Well and water levels near sea level at the nearby coastal monitoring well, indicate a vulnerability to saltwater leakage under current conditions and rates of production. It should be noted that none of the District's production wells have yet been contaminated by seawater. The District is well underway with implementing an integrated resources plan that will both reduce demand through conservation and supplement groundwater with a new water supply source. A program level Environmental Impact Report is now being prepared, and it is anticipated that one of two regional projects being evaluated will be constructed by 2010. In the interim, the District has taken Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 13 numerous actions to limit water demand so as not to exacerbate the overdraft conditions prior to a solution being in place.
F20:
The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency's wells are suffering from seawater intrusion. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. Many private wells in the coastal area are suffering from seawater intrusion. A number of PVWMA’s monitoring wells in the coastal area indicate varying levels of seawater intrusion. None of PVWMA’s production wells are affected by seawater intrusion. The City has one drinking water well in the coastal area. In an effort to reduce seawater intrusion, this well is now used only as an emergency backup supply well. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency AGREES. Agree generally, especially if the finding is intended to refer to the many private wells in the coastal PVWMA area that are suffering from seawater intrusion. PVWMA owns and maintains only a limited number of monitoring wells and production wells of its own. A number of these monitoring wells in the coastal area indicate varying levels of seawater intrusion. None of PVWMA’s production wells are affected by seawater intrusion. A Valuable Resource
F21:
The City of Santa Cruz's regional wastewater treatment plant discharges 10 million gallons of water per day, five million from the city and five million from the unincorporated area it serves. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. Flows through this regional plant vary according to time of year, but average in the range of the stated flows. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. Noting that the City of Santa Cruz is also required to respond to this finding, the agency defers to that City’s response. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. - 14 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Noting that the City of Santa Cruz is also required to respond to this finding, the agency defers to the City’s response.
F22:
Watsonville's wastewater treatment plant produces seven million gallons of water per day. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. In addition, the City of Watsonville is currently working cooperatively with PVWMA to design and build a tertiary treatment facility, which will produce approximately 4,000 acre-feet of recycled water per year. This water will be used for agricultural irrigation. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. Noting that the City of Watsonville is also required to respond to this finding, the agency defers to the City’s response.
F23:
The City of Scotts Valley's tertiary water treatment agency has a capacity of one million gallons per day. Response: Scotts Valley Water District AGREES. This finding would be better stated, “The City of Scotts Valley's tertiary water treatment facility has a current capacity of 750,000 gallons per day with the ability to expand to one million gallons per day.” Tertiary Water Plants
F24:
Tertiary plant designs and uses vary widely. Each is designed and built based on the intended use. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. The City has evaluated a number of options for the tertiary treatment plant currently under design. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and should be expanded. It would be more accurate if it stated, “Recycled water facility designs and uses vary widely. Each facility is designed and built based on the intended use. In Scotts Valley, due to the potential Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 15 for groundwater impacts to the sole source aquifer, a high level of treatment was required and a tertiary plant with nitrogen removal was selected for design and construction of the system.”
F25:
Several reasons make building tertiary water treatment plants desirable: • By decreasing demand for fresh water, it relieves pressure on aquifers. • The water can be used to recharge aquifers. • It recycles and re-uses a valuable resource. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. T ertiary water treatment must be shown to actually reduce demand for fresh water in order to make it cost justifiable; and only under some very controlled and difficult circumstances could it be used to recharge aquifers, most of which would not be feasible for the overstressed aquifer conditions in Santa Cruz County. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. The City notes that recycling benefits are not necessarily limited to groundwater resources. There may also be benefits due to reduced reliance on surface, imported, or other water supplies. The City also notes that use of recycled water for direct aquifer recharge is highly regulated to the extent that, depending on the circumstances, it may not be feasible or affordable. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The agency notes that recycling benefits are not necessarily limited to groundwater resources. There may also be benefits due to reduced reliance on surface, imported, or other water supplies. The agency also notes that use of recycled water for direct aquifer recharge is highly regulated to the extent that, depending on the circumstances, it may not be feasible or affordable. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. The District agrees with the first and third bullets in this finding. The District disagrees with the second bullet. It would be more correct to state, “Generally, recycled water from tertiary plants with nitrogen removal can be used to recharge aquifers, within certain constraints established by the state regulatory agencies. Recharge of aquifers is not on the current list of approved uses for Scotts Valley Water District. This list, enumerated in the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) permit issued to the District, ‘Master Water Recycling Requirements (Distributor) Order No. 01-067,’ includes irrigation of landscape, irrigation of food crops, irrigation of pastures and supply for recreational and landscape impoundments. For Scotts Valley Water District to recharge aquifers - 16 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t with recycled water would require a modification of the RWQCB permit and compliance with existing regulations for such use.”
F26:
Several obstacles exist to wider use: • Some people are reluctant to use treated sewage water. • The review period for projects is longer than with regular water installations. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. These two listed obstacles certainly are not exclusive, but merely representative of some of the obstacles that exist. Finding adequate markets to justify the cost, building infrastructure to move it around, etc. are also obstacles to widespread use. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. Agree generally, though the two identified obstacles are not exhaustive of all such obstacles. For example, obstacles confronting the joint PVWMA-City of Watsonville recycling project include, among others: market concerns about the use of recycled water on edible food crops; high salt content of the treated effluent which, though not a health risk, is unacceptable for irrigation use; seasonality of irrigation demand, hampering cost-effective use of off-season effluent; and relatively high cost as compared with other possible water supply alternatives. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The two identified obstacles are not exhaustive of all such obstacles. For example, obstacles confronting the joint PVWMA-City of Watsonville recycling project include, among others: market concerns about the use of recycled water on edible food crops; high salt content of the treated effluent, which, though not a health risk, is unacceptable for irrigation use; seasonality of irrigation demand, hampering cost-effective use of off-season effluent; and relatively high cost as compared with other possible water supply alternatives. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 17 This finding is simplistic and should be expanded. It would be more accurate if the following bullets were added: • Distribution of recycled water requires a separate, costly recycled water distribution pipe network that presently is designed to reach only key locations. Future expansion of the system may make recycled water available to more customers. • State requirements are such that there are up-front costs and resources required for agency approval to hook up. These up-front costs can dissuade potential customers from taking on a retrofit project. Using Recycled Water
F27:
Recycled water can be used for non-residential (commercial) water closets, urinals, and trap primers for floor drains and floor sinks.4 Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The finding neglects to cite commercial agriculture as a proven and effective market for recycled water. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The finding neglects to cite commercial agriculture as a proven and effective market for recycled water. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This finding is simplistic and should be expanded. It would be better if the finding were changed to, “Generally, recycled water from tertiary plants with nitrogen removal can be used for non-residential (commercial) water closets, urinals, and trap primers for floor drains and floor sinks, within certain constraints established by the state regulatory agencies. These uses are not on the current list of approved uses for Scotts Valley Water District. This list, enumerated in the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) permit issued to the District, ‘Master Water Recycling Requirements (Distributor) Order No. 01-067,’ includes irrigation of landscape, irrigation of food crops, irrigation of pastures and supply for recreational and landscape impoundments. For Scotts Valley Water District to distribute recycled water for use in non-residential (commercial) water closets, urinals, and trap primers for floor drains and floor sinks, would require a modification of the RWQCB permit and compliance with existing regulations for such use.” 4 Uniform Plumbing Code, 2000 Edition, Appendix J. - 18 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t
F28:
Residential uses for recycled water are limited to front yard in-ground landscape irrigation. Outside hose connections cannot be connected to recycled water. Back yard use is restricted. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City’s recycling effort focuses on a commercial agricultural application and, therefore, the City has never thoroughly researched residential use requirements. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The agency’s recycling effort focuses on a commercial agricultural application and, therefore, the agency has never thoroughly researched residential use requirements. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding would be more accurate if the finding were changed to, “The District’s permit with the RWQCB requires the establishment of procedures and uses. The District’s current procedures, approved by DHS and RWQCB, currently limit residential uses for recycled water to front yard in-ground landscape irrigation under the control of a homeowners association. Outside hose connections cannot be connected to recycled water. The potential for cross-connections is carefully avoided, for instance by prohibiting any hose connections on the fronts of houses. Backyard use of recycled water is prohibited. Notice and public education components are key requirements for such developments. “The District is currently seeking approvals from DHS and RWQCB on the first of these single-family residential development sites and some modifications to the requirements and required documentation may be mandated by the agencies.”
F29:
Recycled water use requires the property owner or manager to be educated in the maintenance of the system. This would entail the maintenance and visibility of signage, annual testing of the back flow protection device and the responsibility of not allowing any modifications to the recycled water plumbing. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. Careful management for protection of health and safety is important both in urban/residential applications and in commercial agricultural applications. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency AGREES. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 19 Careful management for protection of health and safety is important both in urban/residential applications and in commercial agricultural applications. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “Recycled water use requires an on-site recycled water coordinator (the property owner, manager or their designated representative) to be educated and certified in the operation and maintenance of recycled water systems. Operations and maintenance typically entail the hours of operation, assuring that there is no puddling or runoff from the site, maintaining signage, annual testing of the back flow protection device, annual reporting and the responsibility for not allowing any modifications to the recycled water plumbing.” City of Santa Cruz
F30:
The Santa Cruz City water supply comes from North Coast wells and ground water taken from the San Lorenzo River during the rainy season and stored in the Loch Lomond reservoir. Environmental, geologic and political factors prevent the city from increasing its storage capacity. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The City’s water supplies are: surface diversions from four north coast streams, a direct diversion from the San Lorenzo River in the City, several small wells in the Live Oak area, and the Newell Creek (Loch Lomond) Reservoir which is filled directly by inflow from Newell Creek or by pumping water up to the reservoir from a diversion facility on the San Lorenzo River at Felton. Regarding the factors that have prevented the City from increasing its storage capacity, the listing of these three factors is dramatically oversimplistic. In fact, the City has investigated many supply augmentation alternatives over the years and most of them have failed to progress for many reasons including some of the above, seismic considerations, cost, and others.
F31:
During drought years, the City of Santa Cruz must rely on conservation and occasional mandatory rationing to supply its customers. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. In truth, the City’s water conservation efforts are not any more important to its water supply plan in drought than they are in non-drought conditions. Mandatory restrictions on water use, however, are reserved for drought emergencies.
F32:
The city is in the planning process for a desalination plant to convert seawater to fresh water for drought years. - 20 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. The City is currently engaged in environmental review of a desalination facility and that a decision to proceed with the design of such a facility has not yet been made.
F33:
The City of Santa Cruz has explored the idea of tertiary sewage water treatment but has rejected it for several reasons: • The current secondary treatment system doesn’t use the correct process. It uses “trickling filters” rather than the necessary “nutrient removal” approach. • The city doesn’t have enough space. • Odors could be a problem in a densely populated area. • It would take more electrical power. • It would affect rates. • The City has no distribution system for the recycled water it would generate. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department DISAGREES. The City of Santa Cruz has not rejected the idea of tertiary sewage/treatment/reuse. It thus far has proven less feasible than the preferred alternative, desalination. Regarding the first point, it is correct that without modification to the current wastewater plant processes, (i.e. construct tertiary treatment processes for at least some of the influent) it does not “use the correct process.” Regarding the second point, inadequate space has never been a deciding factor. Inadequate space would likely make it much more expensive as it would require moving some of the plant influent off-site, but that does not make such a project infeasible. Regarding the third point, odors in the densely populated area around the plant was never considered in the City’s investigation of reclaim/reuse. Regarding the fourth point, all supply alternatives considered would impact rates. Reclaim/reuse would have had virtually the same impact on ratepayers as the preferred alternative, desalination. Finally, the point that the City has no distribution system for the recycled water was a cost factor in the decision to rank reclaim lower than the preferred alternative, desalination. City of Scotts Valley
F34:
The Scotts Valley Water District built a tertiary wastewater treatment plant in 1997. It treats secondary sewage water that was previously being piped to the Santa Cruz City ocean outfall. The tertiary-treated water was to be used for irrigation water and would thereby lessen the demand on the aquifer. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 21 Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “The Scotts Valley Water District built a tertiary wastewater treatment plant beginning in
F35:
The Scotts Valley Water District's tertiary water treatment plant was originally projected to cost $4.9 million. It was financed with a Certificate of Participation for $4.25 million along with surplus funds. The district did not understand the full extent of the California Department of Health Service’s requirements. With significant changes to the original design, the cost of the plant ultimately rose to nearly $10 million. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “The Scotts Valley Water District's tertiary water treatment plant was originally projected to cost $4.9 million. The plant and recycled water distribution system were financed with a Certificate of Participation for $4.25 million along with surplus funds. The district did not anticipate the full extent of the California Department of Health Service’s requirements for construction of the plant, in particular the requirements related to the UV system which is relatively new technology for such an application. With significant changes to the original design, the cost of the plant ultimately rose to nearly $5.5 million, with the distribution system costing the District another $2.9 million to date. Moreover, the additional requirements greatly increased projected operational costs for the tertiary treatment.”
F36:
The district planned for potential developments to use recycled water by installing connection points when Scotts Valley Drive was reconstructed. Response: Scotts Valley Water District AGREES.
F37:
The tertiary treatment plant was built on land owned by the City of Scotts Valley. The water district paid for the building, then gave the plant to the city and agreed to pay for its maintenance and operations and to handle the distribution. A 1996 agreement stipulated how the city would pay for the treated water it needed. The city would pay a calculated reduced price to the SVWD based on the amount it used. The city has challenged the terms of the agreement and has been meeting with the district for months to agree on a new formula. - 22 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. It would be more accurate to change the last sentence to read, “The City and the District disagreed on the interpretation of the terms of the agreement as it would be applied during the unexpectedly long start-up period. The two public agencies renegotiated these terms and reached agreement for a five-year amendment that satisfies both agencies.”
F38:
Under the present rate structure, recycled water is priced at 80% of the price of potable water. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “Under the District’s present rate structure, recycled water is priced at 80% of the price of potable water for recycled water customers inside the District with the exception of the City. Rules and regulations for distribution of water to recycled water customers outside the District have yet to be developed.”
F39:
The tertiary plant has been operational for two years. It has a capacity of one million gallons per day but operates at much less because of a lack of customers. At the end of calendar year 2003, the district had one customer: the City of Scotts Valley. By mid-2004, it will have 10 connections. Seven of those are for the City of Scotts Valley. When the plant resumes operations for this irrigation season (the dry months of the year), a handful of new customers are expected. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. It would be more accurate if, beginning with the second sentence it stated that, “The tertiary plant has an ultimate capacity of one million gallons per day but operates at a much lower flow rate because of a current lack of customers. At the end of calendar year 2003, the district had two customers, the City of Scotts Valley and Baymonte Christian Preschool. By mid-2004, the District anticipates at least 10 connections, including the Scotts Valley Unified School District’s high school playing fields, a major landscape user in the area. Seven connections are parks and/or median strips owned and operated by the City of Scotts Valley. The plant resumed operations early this irrigation season (the dry months of the year) due to the lack of rain starting March 1st.”
F40:
The system cost $100,000 to operate during the July 2002-June 2003 season. The Grand Jury was unable to discover whether revenues cover expenses. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 23 It would be more accurate if the finding stated that, “The operating costs for the recycled water system were about $90,000 during the July 2002-June 2003 season. Although the end-of-year numbers are not yet available from the District, staff project that operating costs for FY 2003-2004 will be about $110,000. “There are also significant costs for the debt service incurred to pay for the construction of the recycled water plant and distribution system. These combined operating and debt service expenses can be compared to revenues of about $9,000 and $14,000, respectively, for the two fiscal years. As an in-lieu recharge project, this program’s shortfall is subsidized by the District’s potable water customers.”
F41:
A financial plan and rate study was prepared for the district in April 2002. It calls for a 33% rate increase over five years for all of the district's customers. The district had originally projected that recycled water users would use 200 acre-feet per year. Because of the lack of customers the rate study may have to be re- negotiated and rates increased. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if the last statement was expanded to read, “There were several factors that were not known at the time of the 2002 study. For instance, the annual operating costs of the tertiary plant were projected at a level of only about $50,000 - $70,000 and have already been much higher. The actual debt service was higher than anticipated due to the additional $2.3 million dollars in unanticipated COP’s obtained in late 2002 to pay for the unanticipated final costs of construction of the recycled water plant and core recycled water distribution system. Similarly, the depreciation costs related to the higher-cost construction of the tertiary plant and recycled water distribution system was not considered. “Because of these factors plus an initial lack of customers, the District is planning to have the financial management and rate study plan revised during FY 2004-05 and the consultant’s new study may include recommendations to adjust rates differently than originally suggested.”
F42:
Scotts Valley Water District officials said the delay in getting more customers online is caused by a bottleneck in the Monterey office of the California Department of Health Services, which approves all recycled water projects. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “Scotts Valley Water District officials said the delay in getting more customers online is caused by a bottleneck in the Monterey office of the California Department of Health Services, (DHS) which currently pre-approves all recycled water projects. - 24 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Although DHS staff work hard to cooperate with the District’s needs, once the District submits plans to DHS, the DHS response and turnaround has occasionally taken up to six months (e.g., plans for retrofitting landscaping at the Santa Cruz Medical Center were submitted on May 28, 2003 and the DHS’s first response/comments were dated November 12, 2003, and these were for landscaping at a commercial site similar to those already reviewed and approved), often due to the limited staffing of the office according to statements made by DHS staff to the District. “The District concurs that review and turnaround took longer for both the agencies and the District during start-up as templates and procedures needed to be established but now that the process is in place, the District is working with DHS and RWQCB to streamline approvals.” Again, it is important to emphasize that the distribution and use of tertiary-treated water is a new activity in this region, although well established elsewhere (such as in Southern California). SVWD has voluntarily assumed the position of pioneering new concepts as the first distributor of any recycled in the Monterey District of the Department of Health Services (DHS). The District has found staff members of other agencies, such as Monterey DHS, are often reviewing this type of application for the first time and understandably do not want to make mistakes. This hesitancy (which we hope will fade away in the near future as familiarity and routine are established) has led to time delays and much higher costs than anticipated – for both the District and the recycled water customers. In some cases, a great deal of cost and time has been added for “safety considerations” that would not be expected in areas where the use and distribution of recycled water has become routine. These issues would apply to any water district, agency, city, etc., that attempted to initiate such a program not yet common in local usage. In fact, the District met with DHS and RWQCB on June 30, 2004 to discuss the ongoing need for pre-approvals. The result of the meeting will hopefully be more customers on-line quicker, assuming that potential customers work closely with the District to provide the required plans, revisions and on-site retrofit work in a timely manner.
F43:
The California Department of Health Services in Monterey said it welcomes more projects from Scotts Valley. It says there is no delay in processing them. Health officials said early drawings often did not meet standards and this caused the delays. Response: Scotts Valley Water District NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 25 The District has no information on what DHS may have told the Grand Jury committee, however, as presented, the finding conflicts with the District’s understanding of DHS staffing issues (see response to Finding 42, above).
F44:
The SVWD currently allows recycled water to be used only for landscape irrigation. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “The approved uses for recycled water distributed by the Scotts Valley Water District are established by regulations and by the state agencies during the permitting process. The list of approved uses, enumerated in the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) permit issued to the District, ‘Master Water Recycling Requirements (Distributor) Order No. 01-067,’ includes irrigation of landscape, irrigation of food crops, irrigation of pastures and supply for recreational and landscape impoundments. For Scotts Valley Water District to use recycled water for other uses would require a modification of the RWQCB permit and compliance with existing regulations for such use. “Since landscaping is more common than food crops or pasture land within the extent of the existing recycled water distribution system, landscaping has been the focus of the program to date. Two pending projects involve impoundments but will require additional permitting to allow existing overflow structures to continue to operate.”
F45:
The City of Scotts Valley's Planning Department said it is the Scotts Valley Water District’s responsibility to take care of all water issues. Response: Scotts Valley Water District NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The District has no information on what the City may have told the Grand Jury, however, the statement agrees with the District’s understanding of the relationship.
F46:
Scotts Valley water officials said the present rate structure is not sufficient to encourage existing non-residential customers to convert to recycled water for landscaping. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “Scotts Valley Water District officials said the present rate structure, alone, does not appear to be sufficient to encourage existing non-residential customers to convert to recycled water for landscaping. This could be because of the up-front costs and difficulties in preparing plans and specifications that meet DHS requirements and - 26 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t to actually perform the required retrofit actions. However, in many cases there are other modes of encouragement available to the District. As time and staff resources allow, these other avenues are being pursued by District staff.” Pajaro Valley
F47:
The City of Watsonville is a full service city with its own sewage, water, garbage, fire and police departments. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. In addition, the City provides water and sewer services to a large population outside of the City limits. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. Noting that the City of Watsonville is also required to respond to this finding, the agency defers to the City’s response.
F48:
In 1997 with the over-pumping of wells and seawater intrusion, the Pajaro Valley Basin Management Plan addressed the development of recycled water. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The PVWMA’s original Basin Management Plan was adopted in 1993, and a Revised Basin Management Plan was adopted in 2002. The Revised Basin Management Plan includes a joint PVWMA-City of Watsonville recycling project as an integral part of the overall, long-term water supply solution for the Pajaro Valley groundwater basin. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The agency’s original Basin Management Plan was adopted in 1993, and a Revised Basin Management Plan was adopted in 2002. The Revised Basin Management Plan includes a joint PVWMA-City of Watsonville recycling project as an integral part of the overall, long-term water supply solution for the Pajaro Valley groundwater basin.
F49:
A pipeline project is in process to bring fresh water from the Central Valley to help solve the problem. This water will be mixed with recycled water to reduce the salinity to the level required for agricultural use. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 27 The PVWMA’s Revised Basin Management Plan is a multi-faceted plan, which includes importation, recycling, development of local surface supplies, conservation, and watershed management programs. Blending with imported water is key to reducing the salinity of the recycled supply to an acceptable level, as noted in the finding. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The agency’s Revised Basin Management Plan is a multi-faceted plan, which includes importation, recycling, development of local surface supplies, conservation, and watershed management programs. Blending with imported water is key to reducing the salinity of the recycled supply to an acceptable level, as noted in the finding.
F50:
U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-Carmel Valley) wrote legislation at the federal level to get Bureau of Reclamation Title 16 grant funding. The PVWMA received Congressional authorization (not just an appropriation), for up to $20 million in Bureau of Reclamation funding for the water-recycling project. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Watsonville has been authorized to receive up to $20 million of Federal Title 16 grant funding through the Bureau of Reclamation for construction of the joint PVWMA-City recycling project. The City and the PVWMA are working collaboratively to assure that these appropriated funds are allocated by Congress for distribution to the City. Congressman Farr has been extremely supportive of the recycling project and Federal funding for it. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Watsonville has been authorized to receive up to $20 million of Federal Title 16 grant funding through the Bureau of Reclamation for construction of the joint PVWMA-City recycling project. The City and the PVWMA are working collaboratively to assure that these appropriated funds are allocated by Congress for distribution to the City. Congressman Farr has been extremely supportive of the recycling project and Federal funding for it.
F51:
The city and the water district will contribute 75% of the cost of the plant and distribution, with the remaining 25% coming from the federal government. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The Title 16 program requires a 75% local funding match. - 28 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The Title 16 program requires a 75%-25% split between local and federal funding. Engineering estimates indicate that total project costs will exceed $80 million; therefore, the federal contribution of $20 million will pay for less than 25% of costs.
F52:
Feasibility studies have been completed and a formal design by Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) has been finished. Completion is scheduled for late
F53:
This project is strictly for agricultural use, primarily for growing strawberries, and crosses county boundaries. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The Revised Basin Management Plan calls for delivery of recycled water to the majority of the agricultural properties in the PVWMA territory west of Highway 1. Strawberries are the chief crop in this area, both in terms of acreage and economic value. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The Revised Basin Management Plan calls for delivery of recycled water to the majority of the agricultural properties in the PVWMA territory west of Highway 1. Strawberries are the chief crop in this area, both in terms of acreage and economic value. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 29 San Lorenzo Valley
F54:
The San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD) has two separate distribution systems. In the north, water is gathered from the surface and from wells, while in the south only wells are used. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. The District agrees with this finding with the following qualifications: a) The term “surface” should be amended to read “surface water”, and the term “wells” should be amended to read “groundwater”.
F55:
The district is always concerned about how federal agencies, for environmental reasons, allow the district to acquire surface water in the northern distribution system. Because of declining water levels in wells in the southern distribution system, SLVWD plans to link these two distribution systems. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District AGREES.
F56:
San Lorenzo Valley Water District is currently working with Santa Cruz County staff to evaluate ground water recharge. The Hanson Aggregate and Lone Star quarries will be closing, and the county is funding requests for proposals to use these quarries to hold onsite water runoff for ground water percolation and retention. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County would clarify that the County has developed proposals to analyze this possible end use of the quarries but is soliciting grant funding for a feasibility level analysis. The County would add that San Lorenzo Valley Water District is cooperating with County staff but may view the effort as a lesser priority than County staff. The Scotts Valley Water District and the City of Santa Cruz Water Department are cooperating with County staff at a similar level to the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. Soquel Creek
F57:
The flow rate of Soquel Creek and the ground water aquifer have a direct interaction. When the water district’s wells are turned off, the creek rises. Response: Soquel Creek Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. - 30 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Surface and groundwater do directly interact, and it is true that pumping from deep wells (i.e. those operated by the District in the vicinity of Soquel Creek) almost certainly decreases the amount of flow in the creek. Thus, if District wells were turned off, the creek would rise; however, a recent comprehensive analysis of numerous studies that have been conducted over the years about stream-aquifer interaction concluded that the hydraulic connection between the stream and deep Purisima aquifers (from which District wells pump) is sufficiently slow and diffuse that pumping has only a small, attenuated effect on “baseflow.” Baseflow is the portion of total streamflow that originates from groundwater. In Soquel Creek, the relatively small impact of District pumping is masked by a number of other factors that collectively have a greater impact on baseflow, including logging and forest fires; grazing; rural and urban development; riparian evapotranspiration; streambed aggradation and degradation; the Loma Prieta earthquake; groundwater pumping from shallow wells; and precipitation. It is estimated that historical baseflow depletions caused by District pumping have been less than 0.5 cubic feet per second.
F58:
The district is considering joining with the City of Santa Cruz in building a desalination water plant. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. The City’s Integrated Water Plan includes, as one of two preferred alternatives, a cooperative effort with the Soquel Creek Water District in the construction of a 2- 1/2 million gallon per day desalination facility. Response: Soquel Creek Water District AGREES Both the City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District’s Integrated Water Plan includes, as one of two preferred alternatives, a cooperative effort to construct a 2-1/2 million gallon per day ocean desalination facility. The District would have use of this source to supplement its groundwater supplies during all but seasonal drought periods, thereby allowing recovery of groundwater levels to provide a sufficient barrier against saltwater intrusion.
F59:
Soquel Creek Water District management believes the county should manage the county’s water resources. Response: Soquel Creek Water District DISAGREES. Neither the General Manager nor any other management employee of Soquel Creek Water District was interviewed by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury and did not make this statement. The District has a longstanding effort and commitment to managing the groundwater resources underlying its service area. There are both groundwater and surface water resources that are currently outside the jurisdiction Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 31 of any water agency, and therefore, any public management effort for these resources would need to come from the county. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
40
Not linked to specific findings.
R20:
The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency's wells are suffering from seawater intrusion. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. Many private wells in the coastal area are suffering from seawater intrusion. A number of PVWMA’s monitoring wells in the coastal area indicate varying levels of seawater intrusion. None of PVWMA’s production wells are affected by seawater intrusion. The City has one drinking water well in the coastal area. In an effort to reduce seawater intrusion, this well is now used only as an emergency backup supply well. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency AGREES. Agree generally, especially if the finding is intended to refer to the many private wells in the coastal PVWMA area that are suffering from seawater intrusion. PVWMA owns and maintains only a limited number of monitoring wells and production wells of its own. A number of these monitoring wells in the coastal area indicate varying levels of seawater intrusion. None of PVWMA’s production wells are affected by seawater intrusion. A Valuable Resource
R21:
The City of Santa Cruz's regional wastewater treatment plant discharges 10 million gallons of water per day, five million from the city and five million from the unincorporated area it serves. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. Flows through this regional plant vary according to time of year, but average in the range of the stated flows. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. Noting that the City of Santa Cruz is also required to respond to this finding, the agency defers to that City’s response. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. - 14 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Noting that the City of Santa Cruz is also required to respond to this finding, the agency defers to the City’s response.
R22:
Watsonville's wastewater treatment plant produces seven million gallons of water per day. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. In addition, the City of Watsonville is currently working cooperatively with PVWMA to design and build a tertiary treatment facility, which will produce approximately 4,000 acre-feet of recycled water per year. This water will be used for agricultural irrigation. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. Noting that the City of Watsonville is also required to respond to this finding, the agency defers to the City’s response.
R23:
The City of Scotts Valley's tertiary water treatment agency has a capacity of one million gallons per day. Response: Scotts Valley Water District AGREES. This finding would be better stated, “The City of Scotts Valley's tertiary water treatment facility has a current capacity of 750,000 gallons per day with the ability to expand to one million gallons per day.” Tertiary Water Plants
R24:
Tertiary plant designs and uses vary widely. Each is designed and built based on the intended use. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. The City has evaluated a number of options for the tertiary treatment plant currently under design. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and should be expanded. It would be more accurate if it stated, “Recycled water facility designs and uses vary widely. Each facility is designed and built based on the intended use. In Scotts Valley, due to the potential Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 15 for groundwater impacts to the sole source aquifer, a high level of treatment was required and a tertiary plant with nitrogen removal was selected for design and construction of the system.”
R25:
Several reasons make building tertiary water treatment plants desirable: • By decreasing demand for fresh water, it relieves pressure on aquifers. • The water can be used to recharge aquifers. • It recycles and re-uses a valuable resource. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. T ertiary water treatment must be shown to actually reduce demand for fresh water in order to make it cost justifiable; and only under some very controlled and difficult circumstances could it be used to recharge aquifers, most of which would not be feasible for the overstressed aquifer conditions in Santa Cruz County. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. The City notes that recycling benefits are not necessarily limited to groundwater resources. There may also be benefits due to reduced reliance on surface, imported, or other water supplies. The City also notes that use of recycled water for direct aquifer recharge is highly regulated to the extent that, depending on the circumstances, it may not be feasible or affordable. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The agency notes that recycling benefits are not necessarily limited to groundwater resources. There may also be benefits due to reduced reliance on surface, imported, or other water supplies. The agency also notes that use of recycled water for direct aquifer recharge is highly regulated to the extent that, depending on the circumstances, it may not be feasible or affordable. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. The District agrees with the first and third bullets in this finding. The District disagrees with the second bullet. It would be more correct to state, “Generally, recycled water from tertiary plants with nitrogen removal can be used to recharge aquifers, within certain constraints established by the state regulatory agencies. Recharge of aquifers is not on the current list of approved uses for Scotts Valley Water District. This list, enumerated in the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) permit issued to the District, ‘Master Water Recycling Requirements (Distributor) Order No. 01-067,’ includes irrigation of landscape, irrigation of food crops, irrigation of pastures and supply for recreational and landscape impoundments. For Scotts Valley Water District to recharge aquifers - 16 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t with recycled water would require a modification of the RWQCB permit and compliance with existing regulations for such use.”
R26:
Several obstacles exist to wider use: • Some people are reluctant to use treated sewage water. • The review period for projects is longer than with regular water installations. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. These two listed obstacles certainly are not exclusive, but merely representative of some of the obstacles that exist. Finding adequate markets to justify the cost, building infrastructure to move it around, etc. are also obstacles to widespread use. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. Agree generally, though the two identified obstacles are not exhaustive of all such obstacles. For example, obstacles confronting the joint PVWMA-City of Watsonville recycling project include, among others: market concerns about the use of recycled water on edible food crops; high salt content of the treated effluent which, though not a health risk, is unacceptable for irrigation use; seasonality of irrigation demand, hampering cost-effective use of off-season effluent; and relatively high cost as compared with other possible water supply alternatives. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The two identified obstacles are not exhaustive of all such obstacles. For example, obstacles confronting the joint PVWMA-City of Watsonville recycling project include, among others: market concerns about the use of recycled water on edible food crops; high salt content of the treated effluent, which, though not a health risk, is unacceptable for irrigation use; seasonality of irrigation demand, hampering cost-effective use of off-season effluent; and relatively high cost as compared with other possible water supply alternatives. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 17 This finding is simplistic and should be expanded. It would be more accurate if the following bullets were added: • Distribution of recycled water requires a separate, costly recycled water distribution pipe network that presently is designed to reach only key locations. Future expansion of the system may make recycled water available to more customers. • State requirements are such that there are up-front costs and resources required for agency approval to hook up. These up-front costs can dissuade potential customers from taking on a retrofit project. Using Recycled Water
R27:
Recycled water can be used for non-residential (commercial) water closets, urinals, and trap primers for floor drains and floor sinks.4 Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The finding neglects to cite commercial agriculture as a proven and effective market for recycled water. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The finding neglects to cite commercial agriculture as a proven and effective market for recycled water. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This finding is simplistic and should be expanded. It would be better if the finding were changed to, “Generally, recycled water from tertiary plants with nitrogen removal can be used for non-residential (commercial) water closets, urinals, and trap primers for floor drains and floor sinks, within certain constraints established by the state regulatory agencies. These uses are not on the current list of approved uses for Scotts Valley Water District. This list, enumerated in the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) permit issued to the District, ‘Master Water Recycling Requirements (Distributor) Order No. 01-067,’ includes irrigation of landscape, irrigation of food crops, irrigation of pastures and supply for recreational and landscape impoundments. For Scotts Valley Water District to distribute recycled water for use in non-residential (commercial) water closets, urinals, and trap primers for floor drains and floor sinks, would require a modification of the RWQCB permit and compliance with existing regulations for such use.” 4 Uniform Plumbing Code, 2000 Edition, Appendix J. - 18 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t
R28:
Residential uses for recycled water are limited to front yard in-ground landscape irrigation. Outside hose connections cannot be connected to recycled water. Back yard use is restricted. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City’s recycling effort focuses on a commercial agricultural application and, therefore, the City has never thoroughly researched residential use requirements. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The agency’s recycling effort focuses on a commercial agricultural application and, therefore, the agency has never thoroughly researched residential use requirements. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding would be more accurate if the finding were changed to, “The District’s permit with the RWQCB requires the establishment of procedures and uses. The District’s current procedures, approved by DHS and RWQCB, currently limit residential uses for recycled water to front yard in-ground landscape irrigation under the control of a homeowners association. Outside hose connections cannot be connected to recycled water. The potential for cross-connections is carefully avoided, for instance by prohibiting any hose connections on the fronts of houses. Backyard use of recycled water is prohibited. Notice and public education components are key requirements for such developments. “The District is currently seeking approvals from DHS and RWQCB on the first of these single-family residential development sites and some modifications to the requirements and required documentation may be mandated by the agencies.”
R29:
Recycled water use requires the property owner or manager to be educated in the maintenance of the system. This would entail the maintenance and visibility of signage, annual testing of the back flow protection device and the responsibility of not allowing any modifications to the recycled water plumbing. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. Careful management for protection of health and safety is important both in urban/residential applications and in commercial agricultural applications. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency AGREES. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 19 Careful management for protection of health and safety is important both in urban/residential applications and in commercial agricultural applications. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “Recycled water use requires an on-site recycled water coordinator (the property owner, manager or their designated representative) to be educated and certified in the operation and maintenance of recycled water systems. Operations and maintenance typically entail the hours of operation, assuring that there is no puddling or runoff from the site, maintaining signage, annual testing of the back flow protection device, annual reporting and the responsibility for not allowing any modifications to the recycled water plumbing.” City of Santa Cruz
R30:
The Santa Cruz City water supply comes from North Coast wells and ground water taken from the San Lorenzo River during the rainy season and stored in the Loch Lomond reservoir. Environmental, geologic and political factors prevent the city from increasing its storage capacity. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The City’s water supplies are: surface diversions from four north coast streams, a direct diversion from the San Lorenzo River in the City, several small wells in the Live Oak area, and the Newell Creek (Loch Lomond) Reservoir which is filled directly by inflow from Newell Creek or by pumping water up to the reservoir from a diversion facility on the San Lorenzo River at Felton. Regarding the factors that have prevented the City from increasing its storage capacity, the listing of these three factors is dramatically oversimplistic. In fact, the City has investigated many supply augmentation alternatives over the years and most of them have failed to progress for many reasons including some of the above, seismic considerations, cost, and others.
R31:
During drought years, the City of Santa Cruz must rely on conservation and occasional mandatory rationing to supply its customers. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. In truth, the City’s water conservation efforts are not any more important to its water supply plan in drought than they are in non-drought conditions. Mandatory restrictions on water use, however, are reserved for drought emergencies.
R32:
The city is in the planning process for a desalination plant to convert seawater to fresh water for drought years. - 20 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. The City is currently engaged in environmental review of a desalination facility and that a decision to proceed with the design of such a facility has not yet been made.
R33:
The City of Santa Cruz has explored the idea of tertiary sewage water treatment but has rejected it for several reasons: • The current secondary treatment system doesn’t use the correct process. It uses “trickling filters” rather than the necessary “nutrient removal” approach. • The city doesn’t have enough space. • Odors could be a problem in a densely populated area. • It would take more electrical power. • It would affect rates. • The City has no distribution system for the recycled water it would generate. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department DISAGREES. The City of Santa Cruz has not rejected the idea of tertiary sewage/treatment/reuse. It thus far has proven less feasible than the preferred alternative, desalination. Regarding the first point, it is correct that without modification to the current wastewater plant processes, (i.e. construct tertiary treatment processes for at least some of the influent) it does not “use the correct process.” Regarding the second point, inadequate space has never been a deciding factor. Inadequate space would likely make it much more expensive as it would require moving some of the plant influent off-site, but that does not make such a project infeasible. Regarding the third point, odors in the densely populated area around the plant was never considered in the City’s investigation of reclaim/reuse. Regarding the fourth point, all supply alternatives considered would impact rates. Reclaim/reuse would have had virtually the same impact on ratepayers as the preferred alternative, desalination. Finally, the point that the City has no distribution system for the recycled water was a cost factor in the decision to rank reclaim lower than the preferred alternative, desalination. City of Scotts Valley
R34:
The Scotts Valley Water District built a tertiary wastewater treatment plant in 1997. It treats secondary sewage water that was previously being piped to the Santa Cruz City ocean outfall. The tertiary-treated water was to be used for irrigation water and would thereby lessen the demand on the aquifer. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 21 Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “The Scotts Valley Water District built a tertiary wastewater treatment plant beginning in
R35:
The Scotts Valley Water District's tertiary water treatment plant was originally projected to cost $4.9 million. It was financed with a Certificate of Participation for $4.25 million along with surplus funds. The district did not understand the full extent of the California Department of Health Service’s requirements. With significant changes to the original design, the cost of the plant ultimately rose to nearly $10 million. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “The Scotts Valley Water District's tertiary water treatment plant was originally projected to cost $4.9 million. The plant and recycled water distribution system were financed with a Certificate of Participation for $4.25 million along with surplus funds. The district did not anticipate the full extent of the California Department of Health Service’s requirements for construction of the plant, in particular the requirements related to the UV system which is relatively new technology for such an application. With significant changes to the original design, the cost of the plant ultimately rose to nearly $5.5 million, with the distribution system costing the District another $2.9 million to date. Moreover, the additional requirements greatly increased projected operational costs for the tertiary treatment.”
R36:
The district planned for potential developments to use recycled water by installing connection points when Scotts Valley Drive was reconstructed. Response: Scotts Valley Water District AGREES.
R37:
The tertiary treatment plant was built on land owned by the City of Scotts Valley. The water district paid for the building, then gave the plant to the city and agreed to pay for its maintenance and operations and to handle the distribution. A 1996 agreement stipulated how the city would pay for the treated water it needed. The city would pay a calculated reduced price to the SVWD based on the amount it used. The city has challenged the terms of the agreement and has been meeting with the district for months to agree on a new formula. - 22 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. It would be more accurate to change the last sentence to read, “The City and the District disagreed on the interpretation of the terms of the agreement as it would be applied during the unexpectedly long start-up period. The two public agencies renegotiated these terms and reached agreement for a five-year amendment that satisfies both agencies.”
R38:
Under the present rate structure, recycled water is priced at 80% of the price of potable water. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “Under the District’s present rate structure, recycled water is priced at 80% of the price of potable water for recycled water customers inside the District with the exception of the City. Rules and regulations for distribution of water to recycled water customers outside the District have yet to be developed.”
R39:
The tertiary plant has been operational for two years. It has a capacity of one million gallons per day but operates at much less because of a lack of customers. At the end of calendar year 2003, the district had one customer: the City of Scotts Valley. By mid-2004, it will have 10 connections. Seven of those are for the City of Scotts Valley. When the plant resumes operations for this irrigation season (the dry months of the year), a handful of new customers are expected. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. It would be more accurate if, beginning with the second sentence it stated that, “The tertiary plant has an ultimate capacity of one million gallons per day but operates at a much lower flow rate because of a current lack of customers. At the end of calendar year 2003, the district had two customers, the City of Scotts Valley and Baymonte Christian Preschool. By mid-2004, the District anticipates at least 10 connections, including the Scotts Valley Unified School District’s high school playing fields, a major landscape user in the area. Seven connections are parks and/or median strips owned and operated by the City of Scotts Valley. The plant resumed operations early this irrigation season (the dry months of the year) due to the lack of rain starting March 1st.”
R40:
The system cost $100,000 to operate during the July 2002-June 2003 season. The Grand Jury was unable to discover whether revenues cover expenses. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 23 It would be more accurate if the finding stated that, “The operating costs for the recycled water system were about $90,000 during the July 2002-June 2003 season. Although the end-of-year numbers are not yet available from the District, staff project that operating costs for FY 2003-2004 will be about $110,000. “There are also significant costs for the debt service incurred to pay for the construction of the recycled water plant and distribution system. These combined operating and debt service expenses can be compared to revenues of about $9,000 and $14,000, respectively, for the two fiscal years. As an in-lieu recharge project, this program’s shortfall is subsidized by the District’s potable water customers.”
R41:
A financial plan and rate study was prepared for the district in April 2002. It calls for a 33% rate increase over five years for all of the district's customers. The district had originally projected that recycled water users would use 200 acre-feet per year. Because of the lack of customers the rate study may have to be re- negotiated and rates increased. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if the last statement was expanded to read, “There were several factors that were not known at the time of the 2002 study. For instance, the annual operating costs of the tertiary plant were projected at a level of only about $50,000 - $70,000 and have already been much higher. The actual debt service was higher than anticipated due to the additional $2.3 million dollars in unanticipated COP’s obtained in late 2002 to pay for the unanticipated final costs of construction of the recycled water plant and core recycled water distribution system. Similarly, the depreciation costs related to the higher-cost construction of the tertiary plant and recycled water distribution system was not considered. “Because of these factors plus an initial lack of customers, the District is planning to have the financial management and rate study plan revised during FY 2004-05 and the consultant’s new study may include recommendations to adjust rates differently than originally suggested.”
R42:
Scotts Valley Water District officials said the delay in getting more customers online is caused by a bottleneck in the Monterey office of the California Department of Health Services, which approves all recycled water projects. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “Scotts Valley Water District officials said the delay in getting more customers online is caused by a bottleneck in the Monterey office of the California Department of Health Services, (DHS) which currently pre-approves all recycled water projects. - 24 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Although DHS staff work hard to cooperate with the District’s needs, once the District submits plans to DHS, the DHS response and turnaround has occasionally taken up to six months (e.g., plans for retrofitting landscaping at the Santa Cruz Medical Center were submitted on May 28, 2003 and the DHS’s first response/comments were dated November 12, 2003, and these were for landscaping at a commercial site similar to those already reviewed and approved), often due to the limited staffing of the office according to statements made by DHS staff to the District. “The District concurs that review and turnaround took longer for both the agencies and the District during start-up as templates and procedures needed to be established but now that the process is in place, the District is working with DHS and RWQCB to streamline approvals.” Again, it is important to emphasize that the distribution and use of tertiary-treated water is a new activity in this region, although well established elsewhere (such as in Southern California). SVWD has voluntarily assumed the position of pioneering new concepts as the first distributor of any recycled in the Monterey District of the Department of Health Services (DHS). The District has found staff members of other agencies, such as Monterey DHS, are often reviewing this type of application for the first time and understandably do not want to make mistakes. This hesitancy (which we hope will fade away in the near future as familiarity and routine are established) has led to time delays and much higher costs than anticipated – for both the District and the recycled water customers. In some cases, a great deal of cost and time has been added for “safety considerations” that would not be expected in areas where the use and distribution of recycled water has become routine. These issues would apply to any water district, agency, city, etc., that attempted to initiate such a program not yet common in local usage. In fact, the District met with DHS and RWQCB on June 30, 2004 to discuss the ongoing need for pre-approvals. The result of the meeting will hopefully be more customers on-line quicker, assuming that potential customers work closely with the District to provide the required plans, revisions and on-site retrofit work in a timely manner.
R43:
The California Department of Health Services in Monterey said it welcomes more projects from Scotts Valley. It says there is no delay in processing them. Health officials said early drawings often did not meet standards and this caused the delays. Response: Scotts Valley Water District NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 25 The District has no information on what DHS may have told the Grand Jury committee, however, as presented, the finding conflicts with the District’s understanding of DHS staffing issues (see response to Finding 42, above).
R44:
The SVWD currently allows recycled water to be used only for landscape irrigation. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “The approved uses for recycled water distributed by the Scotts Valley Water District are established by regulations and by the state agencies during the permitting process. The list of approved uses, enumerated in the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) permit issued to the District, ‘Master Water Recycling Requirements (Distributor) Order No. 01-067,’ includes irrigation of landscape, irrigation of food crops, irrigation of pastures and supply for recreational and landscape impoundments. For Scotts Valley Water District to use recycled water for other uses would require a modification of the RWQCB permit and compliance with existing regulations for such use. “Since landscaping is more common than food crops or pasture land within the extent of the existing recycled water distribution system, landscaping has been the focus of the program to date. Two pending projects involve impoundments but will require additional permitting to allow existing overflow structures to continue to operate.”
R45:
The City of Scotts Valley's Planning Department said it is the Scotts Valley Water District’s responsibility to take care of all water issues. Response: Scotts Valley Water District NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The District has no information on what the City may have told the Grand Jury, however, the statement agrees with the District’s understanding of the relationship.
R46:
Scotts Valley water officials said the present rate structure is not sufficient to encourage existing non-residential customers to convert to recycled water for landscaping. Response: Scotts Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. This finding is simplistic and would be more accurate if it stated that, “Scotts Valley Water District officials said the present rate structure, alone, does not appear to be sufficient to encourage existing non-residential customers to convert to recycled water for landscaping. This could be because of the up-front costs and difficulties in preparing plans and specifications that meet DHS requirements and - 26 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t to actually perform the required retrofit actions. However, in many cases there are other modes of encouragement available to the District. As time and staff resources allow, these other avenues are being pursued by District staff.” Pajaro Valley
R47:
The City of Watsonville is a full service city with its own sewage, water, garbage, fire and police departments. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department AGREES. In addition, the City provides water and sewer services to a large population outside of the City limits. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. Noting that the City of Watsonville is also required to respond to this finding, the agency defers to the City’s response.
R48:
In 1997 with the over-pumping of wells and seawater intrusion, the Pajaro Valley Basin Management Plan addressed the development of recycled water. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The PVWMA’s original Basin Management Plan was adopted in 1993, and a Revised Basin Management Plan was adopted in 2002. The Revised Basin Management Plan includes a joint PVWMA-City of Watsonville recycling project as an integral part of the overall, long-term water supply solution for the Pajaro Valley groundwater basin. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The agency’s original Basin Management Plan was adopted in 1993, and a Revised Basin Management Plan was adopted in 2002. The Revised Basin Management Plan includes a joint PVWMA-City of Watsonville recycling project as an integral part of the overall, long-term water supply solution for the Pajaro Valley groundwater basin.
R49:
A pipeline project is in process to bring fresh water from the Central Valley to help solve the problem. This water will be mixed with recycled water to reduce the salinity to the level required for agricultural use. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 27 The PVWMA’s Revised Basin Management Plan is a multi-faceted plan, which includes importation, recycling, development of local surface supplies, conservation, and watershed management programs. Blending with imported water is key to reducing the salinity of the recycled supply to an acceptable level, as noted in the finding. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The agency’s Revised Basin Management Plan is a multi-faceted plan, which includes importation, recycling, development of local surface supplies, conservation, and watershed management programs. Blending with imported water is key to reducing the salinity of the recycled supply to an acceptable level, as noted in the finding.
R50:
U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-Carmel Valley) wrote legislation at the federal level to get Bureau of Reclamation Title 16 grant funding. The PVWMA received Congressional authorization (not just an appropriation), for up to $20 million in Bureau of Reclamation funding for the water-recycling project. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Watsonville has been authorized to receive up to $20 million of Federal Title 16 grant funding through the Bureau of Reclamation for construction of the joint PVWMA-City recycling project. The City and the PVWMA are working collaboratively to assure that these appropriated funds are allocated by Congress for distribution to the City. Congressman Farr has been extremely supportive of the recycling project and Federal funding for it. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Watsonville has been authorized to receive up to $20 million of Federal Title 16 grant funding through the Bureau of Reclamation for construction of the joint PVWMA-City recycling project. The City and the PVWMA are working collaboratively to assure that these appropriated funds are allocated by Congress for distribution to the City. Congressman Farr has been extremely supportive of the recycling project and Federal funding for it.
R51:
The city and the water district will contribute 75% of the cost of the plant and distribution, with the remaining 25% coming from the federal government. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The Title 16 program requires a 75% local funding match. - 28 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The Title 16 program requires a 75%-25% split between local and federal funding. Engineering estimates indicate that total project costs will exceed $80 million; therefore, the federal contribution of $20 million will pay for less than 25% of costs.
R52:
Feasibility studies have been completed and a formal design by Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) has been finished. Completion is scheduled for late
R53:
This project is strictly for agricultural use, primarily for growing strawberries, and crosses county boundaries. Response: City of Watsonville Water Department PARTIALLY AGREES. The Revised Basin Management Plan calls for delivery of recycled water to the majority of the agricultural properties in the PVWMA territory west of Highway 1. Strawberries are the chief crop in this area, both in terms of acreage and economic value. Response: Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency PARTIALLY AGREES. The Revised Basin Management Plan calls for delivery of recycled water to the majority of the agricultural properties in the PVWMA territory west of Highway 1. Strawberries are the chief crop in this area, both in terms of acreage and economic value. Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 29 San Lorenzo Valley
R54:
The San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD) has two separate distribution systems. In the north, water is gathered from the surface and from wells, while in the south only wells are used. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. The District agrees with this finding with the following qualifications: a) The term “surface” should be amended to read “surface water”, and the term “wells” should be amended to read “groundwater”.
R55:
The district is always concerned about how federal agencies, for environmental reasons, allow the district to acquire surface water in the northern distribution system. Because of declining water levels in wells in the southern distribution system, SLVWD plans to link these two distribution systems. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District AGREES.
R56:
San Lorenzo Valley Water District is currently working with Santa Cruz County staff to evaluate ground water recharge. The Hanson Aggregate and Lone Star quarries will be closing, and the county is funding requests for proposals to use these quarries to hold onsite water runoff for ground water percolation and retention. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Water District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County would clarify that the County has developed proposals to analyze this possible end use of the quarries but is soliciting grant funding for a feasibility level analysis. The County would add that San Lorenzo Valley Water District is cooperating with County staff but may view the effort as a lesser priority than County staff. The Scotts Valley Water District and the City of Santa Cruz Water Department are cooperating with County staff at a similar level to the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. Soquel Creek
R57:
The flow rate of Soquel Creek and the ground water aquifer have a direct interaction. When the water district’s wells are turned off, the creek rises. Response: Soquel Creek Water District PARTIALLY AGREES. - 30 Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Repor t Surface and groundwater do directly interact, and it is true that pumping from deep wells (i.e. those operated by the District in the vicinity of Soquel Creek) almost certainly decreases the amount of flow in the creek. Thus, if District wells were turned off, the creek would rise; however, a recent comprehensive analysis of numerous studies that have been conducted over the years about stream-aquifer interaction concluded that the hydraulic connection between the stream and deep Purisima aquifers (from which District wells pump) is sufficiently slow and diffuse that pumping has only a small, attenuated effect on “baseflow.” Baseflow is the portion of total streamflow that originates from groundwater. In Soquel Creek, the relatively small impact of District pumping is masked by a number of other factors that collectively have a greater impact on baseflow, including logging and forest fires; grazing; rural and urban development; riparian evapotranspiration; streambed aggradation and degradation; the Loma Prieta earthquake; groundwater pumping from shallow wells; and precipitation. It is estimated that historical baseflow depletions caused by District pumping have been less than 0.5 cubic feet per second.
R58:
The district is considering joining with the City of Santa Cruz in building a desalination water plant. Response: City of Santa Cruz Water Department AGREES. The City’s Integrated Water Plan includes, as one of two preferred alternatives, a cooperative effort with the Soquel Creek Water District in the construction of a 2- 1/2 million gallon per day desalination facility. Response: Soquel Creek Water District AGREES Both the City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District’s Integrated Water Plan includes, as one of two preferred alternatives, a cooperative effort to construct a 2-1/2 million gallon per day ocean desalination facility. The District would have use of this source to supplement its groundwater supplies during all but seasonal drought periods, thereby allowing recovery of groundwater levels to provide a sufficient barrier against saltwater intrusion.
R59:
Soquel Creek Water District management believes the county should manage the county’s water resources. Response: Soquel Creek Water District DISAGREES. Neither the General Manager nor any other management employee of Soquel Creek Water District was interviewed by the 2003-2004 Grand Jury and did not make this statement. The District has a longstanding effort and commitment to managing the groundwater resources underlying its service area. There are both groundwater and surface water resources that are currently outside the jurisdiction Recycled (Reclaimed) Water Report - 31 of any water agency, and therefore, any public management effort for these resources would need to come from the county. Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
At the sale of a property the individual appraiser (in the Assessor’s Office) reviews the Assessor’s records and the final price to see if the description justifies the price for the property. If the appraiser is concerned, he will go out and review the property to see if the description is accurate. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office AGREES.
F2:
The Assessor’s process then relies on the individual appraiser in order to determine if justification exists for seeking escape assessments. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office AGREES.
F3:
Property was regularly reappraised in Santa Cruz County until adoption of Proposition 13. As a result of Proposition 13, reappraisal to increase property valuation was generally limited to transfers of ownership and new construction. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office AGREES.
F4:
Proposition 13 made regular property reviews less important because a review of building permits would identify new construction. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Property reviews are an important tool for the Assessor. Unfortunately, current staffing levels prevent the Assessor from conducting any mass property reviews in the County. Prior to the passage of Proposition 13 the Assessor had an appraisal staff of 20+. Currently the appraisal staff is at 11. With the number of changes of ownership and number of permits issued annually we can barely complete our work and turn the roll over to the Auditor by July 1st as required in Section 616 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
F5:
The Planning Department notifies the Assessor’s Office of every building permit issued. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Furthermore, the Assessor’s Office is given a copy of the plans for the new construction. Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office and - 67
F6:
The Jury reviewed the 134 Red Tag permits issued during 2003 for this report. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F7:
Seventeen permits involved significant changes in the habitable square footage. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office DISAGREES. This finding is not supported by any reference to parcel numbers or addresses or any other evidence which would assist this Office in addressing this issue. Therefore, while the Assessor disagrees with this finding, it is impossible to further comment. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The finding is not supported by any reference to parcel numbers or addresses or any other evidence that would assist the County in evaluating the accuracy of the finding. In the form the data has been presented in the Grand Jury Report, the Planning Department cannot tell which records correlate with the data presented to the Grand Jury by the County.
F8:
The following tables illustrate the discrepancies between the planning permits and the Assessor’s Office’s computer description for the 17 properties identified. - 68 Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office and Assessor/Planning Data Comparison APN Date Last Permit Date Appraisal Reason Permit Reason Apraised Parcel 1 None Listed 9/9/2003 None Listed Remove Bedroom Parcel 2 10/18/2002 9/24/2003 100% Own Change Remove Habitable Garage Parcel 3 12/13/2003 4/18/2003 Misc. Value Change Remove 2nd Unit (Duplex to SFD) Parcel 4 4/3/2003 9/11/2003 100% Own Change Recognize Room Addition Parcel 5 2/14/2003 2/6/2003 100% Own Change Remove Room Parcel 6 1/8/1997 9/3/2003 100% Own Change Recognize Habitable Garage Parcel 7 2/28/1994 10/20/2003 Calamity Restoration Sq. Ft. Addition Parcel 8 7/19/2001 8/6/2003 100% Own Change Remove 2nd Unit (Duplex to SFD) Parcel 9 00/00/02 8/5/2003 Roll Value Change Recognize 2nd Story Parcel 10 11/26/2002 1/1/2003 100% Own Change Recognize Room Addition Parcel 11 8/7/1998 4/23/2003 100% Own Change Recognize Habitable Basement Parcel 12 00/00/94 6/12/2003 Roll Value Change Recognize Room Addition Parcel 13 2/24/1999 8/1/2003 100% Own Change Recognize New House Parcel 14 12/31/1998 1/7/2003 07(sic) Replace SFD Parcel 15 10/15/1999 8/25/2003 100% Own Change Remove 2nd Unit (Duplex to SFD) Parcel 16 12/20/2001 6/19/2003 100% Own Change Recognize 2nd Story Parcel 17 4/17/2003 4/25/2003 100% Own Change Recognize Room Addition SFD = Single Family Dwelling Table 1. Appraisal and permit information for 17 Red-Tagged parcels, 2003. Source: Assessor’s parcel database, Santa Cruz County Planning Department. Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office and - 69 Assessor/Planning Data Comparison (continued). APN Assessor Assessor Planning Assessor Planning Sq Ft Bedrooms Bedrooms Baths F/H Bath F/H Habitable Parcel 1 752 2 1 1 1 Parcel 2 1802 4 N/L 2 N/L Parcel 3 1353 2 2 3 2 Parcel 4 1439 3 3 2 2 Parcel 5 1824 3 N/L 2 N/L Parcel 6 2007 4 3 2 2 Parcel 7 2018 3 N/L 2/1 N/L Parcel 8 1120 3 3 1 1 Parcel 9 1196 1 1 1 1 Parcel 10 791 1 1 1 1 Parcel 11 1051 3 3 1 2 Parcel 12 1051 2 2 1/1 2 Parcel 13 1500 3 2 2 2 Parcel 14 1285 2 1 1 1/1 Parcel 15 1543 3 3 2 2 Parcel 16 374 N/A 2 N/A N/L Parcel 17 1128 3 2 2 2 Baths F = Full Baths Baths H = Half Baths N/A = Not Available in the Assessor's data base. N/L = Not listed in the permit. Table 2. Comparison of property descriptions on the Assessor’s database and the County of Santa Cruz Planning Department’s records on 17 Red Tag parcels, 2003. Number of Bedrooms and Bathrooms. Source: Assessor’s parcel database, Santa Cruz County Planning Department. - 70 Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office and Assessor/Planning Data Comparison (continued). APN Assessor Planning Assessor # Planning # Total # Total # of Units of Units Rooms Rooms Parcel 1 5 6 1 2 to 1 Parcel 2 6 N/L 1 1 Parcel 3 4 6 1 2 to 1 Parcel 4 7 8 1 1 Parcel 5 5 N/L 1 1 Parcel 6 9 9 1 1 Parcel 7 6 N/L 2 2 Parcel 8 N/A 5 1 2 to 1 Parcel 9 4 4 1 1 Parcel 10 N/A 5 1 1 Parcel 11 6 8 1 1 Parcel 12 4 8 1 1 Parcel 13 N/A 7 1 1 Parcel 14 4 N/L 1 1 Parcel 15 6 11 1 2 to 1 Parcel 16 N/A N/L 1 N/L Parcel 17 6 8 1 1 N/A = Not Available in the Assessor's data base. N/L = Not listed in the permit. Table 3. Comparison of property descriptions on the Assessor’s database and the County of Santa Cruz Planning Department’s records on 17 Red Tag parcels, 2003. Number of Rooms and Units. Source: Assessor’s parcel database, Santa Cruz County Planning Department. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office DISAGREES. Again, the seventeen items are not identified by either their parcel number or address so it is impossible to comment on your findings. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office and - 71 The finding is not supported by any reference to parcel numbers or addresses or any other evidence that would assist the County in evaluating the accuracy of the finding. In the form the data has been presented in the Grand Jury Report, the Planning Department cannot tell which records correlate with the data presented to the Grand Jury by the County.
F9:
Twelve of the Red Tag permits show 100% change of ownership as the reason for the last reappraisal. One of the Red Tag permits showed an appraisal date after the permit issue date. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. It is unclear of the finding’s relevance. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES. NOR DISAGREES. The finding is not supported by any reference to parcel numbers or addresses or any other evidence that would assist the County in evaluating the accuracy of the finding. In the form the data has been presented in the Grand Jury Report, the Planning Department cannot tell which records correlate with the data presented to the Grand Jury by the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Assessor should review every permit to ensure that all revenue due is collected as soon as possible. Particular attention should be paid to updating the Assessor’s property description. Every time a property’s records are accessed they should be reviewed for accuracy and a correct description. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented since at least 1975. Every permit issued has always been reviewed to ensure that a proper assessment is made. As for the collection of revenue, the Assessor has no control over the collection of taxes. Supplemental tax bills are mailed monthly and regular tax bills are mailed in late October and the two installments are delinquent December 10th and April 10th. See Assessor’s response in Recommendation #4 below to the statement about updating records.
F10:
Thirteen Red Tag permits show significant discrepancies between the Assessor’s description and the description from the Planning Department on the permit: • Four initially reflect the added illegal rooms in the Assessor’s description but do not show the lower number of rooms when the permit required that the rooms be removed. • Seven show a lower total number of rooms on the Assessor’s description than are shown on the permit information. • Four show one unit on the Assessor’s description when the permit requires the removal of the kitchen fixtures taking the property from two units to one unit. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The number of rooms is not as important to the Assessor as is the correct square footage of the structure. While attempts are made to determine the room count it is not always possible to gain access or talk to the property owner to obtain the - 72 Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office and information. When making an appraisal of the property, the value is determined by multiplying a dollar cost per square foot by the square footage of the structure to determine the value. What the Planning Department calls a bedroom may be an office, a den or have other use designation in the Assessor’s records. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The finding is not supported by any reference to parcel numbers or addresses or any other evidence that would assist the County in evaluating the accuracy of the finding. In the form the data has been presented in the Grand Jury Report, the Planning Department cannot tell which records correlate with the data presented to the Grand Jury by the County. Furthermore, the number of rooms is not as important to the Assessor as is the correct square footage of the structure. Assessor staff does not always have access to the property or the property owners and may use different criteria for identifying rooms and bedrooms than the criteria used by the Planning Department. For instance, the Planning Department may identify a bedroom where the Assessor records indicate an office, den or other use. Each department collects data needed for its own purposes, and discrepancies are not always relevant.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Assessor’s Office should implement a program to update its database and review the parcel descriptions. This could require increased resources. Other counties have contracted with outside sources, paying a percentage of the recovered assessments. A signed property statement for real property, as allowed under Section 441 (a) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, might prove successful. This statement would ask property owners to describe their property. Failure to supply accurate information would be perjury. It may also be possible to prioritize properties, looking at those that have not been examined recently for other causes, such as sales or permits. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s OfficeDISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The Assessor has an ongoing program of updating property characteristics. Each time we visit a property the file is reviewed and updated to the extent possible. As stated in my response to finding #10, oftentimes the property owner is not available when we visit a property and it is not possible to obtain all of the interior information. I have been in the Assessor’s office almost thirty years. I have been involved in the Chief Appraiser’s Association and a member of the California Assessor’s Association and I do not know of any county who has contracted with outside sources who are being paid on a percentage of the recovery. If someone could be hired to do contract work they would have to have an appraisal certification issued Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office and - 77 from the State Board of Equalization and would have to be an employee of an Assessor’s office, Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 670. The final part of this recommendation contains many mischaracterizations of applicable law. First, Section 441 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code pertains to business property not real property. Second, any form that could be created to accomplish this scheme would have to be approved by the State Board of Equalization. Third, costs to produce any such form, envelopes, processing and postage could exceed $93,000 for a mailing to each property in this county. Finally responses would then have to be tracked along with additional mailings to non- filers. The Assessor’s Office does not have sufficient staff to make a field check of the non-filers and from past experiences the response rate to questionnaires is very low.
F11:
A property was reviewed that had a permit to recognize, as built, a new 2-story SFD that was built over 10 years earlier. This permit was taken out so that the property could be sold. The Assessor’s description of the house changed from a 600 square foot cabin to a 1,400 square foot, 2-story house at the time of sale. The new owner was correctly assessed for the fair market value of the property. The Assessor’s Office had not identified the escape assessments by the previous owners until the Grand Jury asked it to explain the assessment process on this property. This property did not show any reappraisal from the permit issuance. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The property referred to in this finding is - APN 091-141-69. The Assessor met with the Grand Jury specifically regarding this property and at that time explained that the permit issued on July 29, 2002 to “recognize as-built 2 story single family dwelling 1 bedroom, 2.5 bath, covered porches …” had actually in part been picked up by our office and placed on the assessment rolls on March 11, 1981, with additional square footage picked up on January 2, 1983. The property sold on December 20, 2002 and unfortunately the appraiser overlooked yet another addition constructed since our last visit in 1983. We have now gone back and levied the escape assessments for prior years. Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office and - 73
F12:
The Assessor’s Office does not notify the Planning Department when it finds that modifications have been made to a structure unless there is a visible safety or environmental violation. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Assessor’s Office should report any discrepancies it may independently find to the Planning Department Code Enforcement section if no codes or laws prevent it. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office DISAGREES. - 76 Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office and The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. It is not the duty of the County Assessor to report building code violations to the Planning Department. The Assessor is only responsible for the proper assessment of taxable property within Santa Cruz County. The Assessor’s Office has no authority in the code enforcement legislative scheme, since that is a function of the Planning Department. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The Assessor is responsible for the proper assessment of taxable property within Santa Cruz County and has no responsibility for reporting building code violations to the Planning Department. While there may be benefits to such an approach, it is likely that such a program would in the long run simply result in lower levels of accessibility by the Assessor to sites, thereby reducing the County’s overall property tax revenues and the effectiveness of the Assessor’s activities.
F13:
The Grand Jury was unable to discover whether any law requires or prevents this. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F14:
Part of the Planning Department’s purpose is to see that building construction and modifications meet the requirements for occupant safety. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F15:
The Assessor’s Office is allowed recovery of escape assessments, on real property, for four years prior to the date of discovery.
F16:
The Santa Cruz County Assessment Roll for 1968-69 amounted to just under $1.2 billion. When Proposition 13 passed in 1978, the base year 1975-76 assessment roll amounted to just under $2.5 billion. Today the assessment roll is over $24 billion, with a $1.5 billion increase last year. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office AGREES.
F17:
The return to county government is a small percentage of the property tax revenue collected. The Assessor’s Office believes that it is hard to justify the expense of pursuing escape assessments. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office DISAGREES. It is the duty of the Assessor to discover all assessable property in the County. Appraisers are assigned a geographic portion of the County and it is part of their responsibility to identify illegal construction and place it on the assessment rolls. When non-permitted construction is discovered, the appraiser must determine what year it was constructed and who was the owner at the time. If the construction was done ten years ago we must use the construction cost for that time period and factor the value forward and enroll the last four years as escaped assessments. If the property has sold, which could be multiple times, the task of identifying the responsible party and their whereabouts is even more difficult. If a property has - 74 Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office and sold the construction is included in the sale price and assessed from that point forward. Also the costs of preparing a roll correction costs the County approximately $50.00 per correction plus the costs of collection by the Tax Collector. It is correct that we do not run escaped assessments on all illegal construction because the cost of preparation and collection may exceed the amount of taxes collected. Santa Cruz County has also had a low value ordinance in place since 1982. The current Board of Supervisors resolution is 480-99, “Resolution Exempting From Property Tax Certain Property With An Assessed Value For Which Property Taxes Would Amount To Less Than The Cost Of Assessing And Collecting The Tax”. This ordinance is provided for in Revenue and Taxation Code Section 155.20.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Any change to the Assessor’s description should be reviewed for escape assessments. These escape assessments should be recovered. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented since at least 1975. It has always been the practice of the Assessor to pick up escapes as they are discovered. As I stated in finding #17 the cost to process the escape may exceed the taxes recovered and in those cases the change is noted in the records. If the property has transferred the value of the escape is included in the sales price. If it is new construction and the value falls under the guidelines of the low value ordinance the value is added to the current assessment roll.
F18:
Taxes that are collected based on the Assessor’s valuation are distributed in the following manner: • 56% to schools. • 13% to the county General Fund. • 12% to redevelopment agencies. • 1% to libraries. • 18% to other agencies. Response: Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office AGREES. Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
45 findings
F1:
JURISDICTION Capitola Santa Scotts Watsonville Santa Cruz County Cruz Valley (unincorporated) and population 10,150 55,600 11,650 47,600 134,700 Number of 359 1,593 373 1,176 3,794 building permits issued last fiscal year Number of 269 1,250 307 981 Does not track in residential permits (est.) this manner. Number of 90 343 66 195 Does not track in commercial (est.) this manner. permits Average number 7 121 21 16.1 Does not track in of days from this manner. permit application until issuance Average number 45 102 45 20.5 Does not track in of days for this manner. commercial permits Fee to be paid * $19,252 $16,155 $42,045 $29,837 $25,998 before issuance of (2,500 sq.ft. house, a building permit doesn’t include for a 1,500 sq. ft. water, discretionary house planning, soils/ geologic fees) Illegal units and 2 92 4 259 320 garage (estimated) conversions discovered last fiscal year. Number of staff in 2 6 2.25 9 22 Building Dept. Estimated # of 100+ 1,000 to 20-30 8,000 Would not estimate. illegal units 5,000 (“A lot”) Table 3. Survey of planning departments in Santa Cruz County, 2004. Source: - 7 Response: City of Capitola AGREES. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES. The numbers representing process time for “Average number of days from permit application until issuance” and “Average number of days for commercial permits” do not accurately reflect overall performance. For example, the City of Santa Cruz does not normally take 121 days to process permits. The average time for a new dwelling, that is complete, accurately prepared and not requiring discretionary review, is only about 15 to 20 days. What extends the average is plans that require multiple rechecks or sit for long periods of time before either revisions are submitted or the applicant finally picks up the permit. The same is true for commercial permits. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County agrees with the finding insofar as it refers to County operations. The County cannot comment on the accuracy of the information provided for the cities. As the data illustrates, the County Planning Department processes and inspects over 50% of the building permits issued by all jurisdictions within the entire county area. The County generally does not track the average number of days to complete the permit process, because often delays in the process are the direct result of the applicant not resubmitting required information. Initial processing times are well within the range of those described by the various cities. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES AND DISAGREES. “Fees to be paid before issuance of a 1,500 sq. ft. house” “$29,837” Partially agrees - The fee estimate as shown includes a $10,270 affordable housing in- lieu fee. While this fee is applicable to a single family home on an existing parcel of record, the vast majority of the 981 residential permits were not subject to the fee as they were part of larger subdivisions (6 or more homes) with inclusionary affordable units, thus were not required to pay the affordable housing in-lieu fee. “Number of staff in Building Dept.” “9” Partially agrees - The nine staff identified in the survey includes three permit center staff and two code enforcement officers. The permit center staff handles a multitude of issues including zoning, business license review and engineering related functions. The Code Enforcement Officers address a variety of issues that overlap building functions, but also include substantial property maintenance issues. Since the survey was completed, the – 8 Planning and Building Departments’ City hired a civilian fire prevention position that is under Community Development. “Estimated # of illegal units” “8,000” Disagree - During the primary harvesting time for strawberries and other row crops, it is likely that the City sees upwards of 8,000 additional residents. Many of these residents crowd into existing units, garages and storage buildings. We would estimate that the actual number of illegal units is closer to 1,000-2,000. Reported from Jurisdictions They were also asked what factors they believe contribute to people not getting permits. The answers to that question and the findings of what jurisdictions believe about themselves are listed below. City of Santa Cruz
F2:
The city said it is diligent in performing plan checking. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
F3:
The city said that many factors contribute to the average time from application to issuance of permits. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
F4:
Specialized plan checks and engineering plan checking are outsourced. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
F5:
The city cited several reasons for problems and delays: • Applicants do not provide adequate plans. • They do not pick up and correct plans in a timely manner. • They do not pick up approved permits when they are ready. These situations affected the city’s average number of days to issue permits. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
F6:
City officials said they stress interpersonal service and receive compliments for good service. Planning and Building Departments’ - 9 Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
F7:
Decision-making is decentralized. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
F8:
The City Council has a hands-off approach and lets staff do their jobs. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The City Councils of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should be commended for conveying the importance of customer service to city staff, and allowing staff to make decisions without interference. Response: City of Capitola AGREES. Recognizing that as the Council exercises its legal authority over planning and development matters, such action does not constitute interference. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Planning and Building Departments’ - 35 The recommendation has been implemented. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. This recommendation does not apply to the County. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. The City has implemented this recommendation. We appreciate the acknowledgement.
F9:
Code enforcement is more reactive, unless a violation presents itself to them. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES. An exception is the Beach Flats target area, which is a pro-active enforcement area.
F10:
Staff said permits are not obtained because: • People are not informed one is needed. • Other professionals say that permits are not needed. • They are not affordable. • People have no desire to obtain them. • A project may not qualify for a permit to be built. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES. Another possibility is that people also want to avoid the bureaucratic process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All jurisdictions should commit themselves to making the permitting processes faster, easier and cheaper. Legislative bodies should consider amnesty programs, reduction in fees, reducing restrictions and streamlining permit processes in order to encourage people to build legally and to legalize existing illegal structures. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. It must be remembered that the development permitting process is foremost a regulatory process. The goal of the regulatory intent should be the first priority, then taking the steps necessary to make the process faster, easier and cheaper. The City of Capitola is undertaking an effort to clarify its zoning ordinance, has hired contract staff to ensure timely processing of applications, and charges fees based on actual cost recovery for the project, such that applicants are refunded permit fees if less staff time than anticipated is taken. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Santa Cruz continuously strives to make the permitting process faster and easier by providing personal service and advice, application and educational materials, and outsourced plan checking services at no additional expense. The City’s fee rates for permitting are currently among the lowest in the County. Illegal construction in the City usually involves the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) through conversion of garages or accessory structures without the benefit of permits. To encourage the legal development of ADUs, the City has enacted Zoning Ordinance changes that relax on-site covered parking requirements and make most ADU applications approvable over the counter, thereby avoiding the substantial cost of discretionary use permits. Additionally, the City developed prototype designs and a “how to” handbook for homeowners interested in developing ADUs. The City Council chose to take this proactive approach of facilitating legal development rather than an amnesty program, which implies an aggressive code enforcement effort, due to the lack of staff resources to support an intensive abatement program. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation is being implemented as part of an overall review of the current land use regulations which will take place over the next several years. The Planning and Building Departments’ - 27 first phase of that process, beginning to correct code inconsistencies and errors, has already begun by the Board of Supervisors. As well, the Planning Department is currently reviewing its administrative processes with the intention of simplifying requirements and streamlining processes, where appropriate. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. The recommendation has already been implemented. Scotts Valley has adopted amnesty programs for correcting illegal construction, reduced fees for correcting illegal second dwelling units and for tree removal permits and amended regulations to streamline permit processes. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. We have implemented the streamlining of processes. We remain concerned that amnesty programs only encourage more illegal construction and are not sustainable without modifications at the State level on Title 24 energy codes and other similar codes. The City has approached local legislators to carry legislation to address these issues and we will continue to do so.
F11:
The city has made it less restrictive and easier to build accessory dwelling units (Granny units).31 Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Scotts Valley
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
The City of Santa Cruz should be commended for making the regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (Granny units) less restrictive. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented.
F12:
This city returned calls on the same day and delivered information to the Grand Jury within six days. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. Heather Boerner, “Granny-unit amendment could affect thousands in Santa Cruz,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 30 July
F13:
Staff is reactive to code violation complaints. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES.
F14:
Staff said permits are not obtained because: • The cost and difficulty in obtaining them. • Environmental regulations, such as those enforced by State Fish and Game concerning endangered species like the Mt. Hermon June Beetle. Response: City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The two reasons cited above are not exclusive of other reasons that permits are not obtained. There are many other potential reasons why permits are not obtained. Capitola
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All jurisdictions should commit themselves to making the permitting processes faster, easier and cheaper. Legislative bodies should consider amnesty programs, reduction in fees, reducing restrictions and streamlining permit processes in order to encourage people to build legally and to legalize existing illegal structures. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. It must be remembered that the development permitting process is foremost a regulatory process. The goal of the regulatory intent should be the first priority, then taking the steps necessary to make the process faster, easier and cheaper. The City of Capitola is undertaking an effort to clarify its zoning ordinance, has hired contract staff to ensure timely processing of applications, and charges fees based on actual cost recovery for the project, such that applicants are refunded permit fees if less staff time than anticipated is taken. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Santa Cruz continuously strives to make the permitting process faster and easier by providing personal service and advice, application and educational materials, and outsourced plan checking services at no additional expense. The City’s fee rates for permitting are currently among the lowest in the County. Illegal construction in the City usually involves the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) through conversion of garages or accessory structures without the benefit of permits. To encourage the legal development of ADUs, the City has enacted Zoning Ordinance changes that relax on-site covered parking requirements and make most ADU applications approvable over the counter, thereby avoiding the substantial cost of discretionary use permits. Additionally, the City developed prototype designs and a “how to” handbook for homeowners interested in developing ADUs. The City Council chose to take this proactive approach of facilitating legal development rather than an amnesty program, which implies an aggressive code enforcement effort, due to the lack of staff resources to support an intensive abatement program. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation is being implemented as part of an overall review of the current land use regulations which will take place over the next several years. The Planning and Building Departments’ - 27 first phase of that process, beginning to correct code inconsistencies and errors, has already begun by the Board of Supervisors. As well, the Planning Department is currently reviewing its administrative processes with the intention of simplifying requirements and streamlining processes, where appropriate. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. The recommendation has already been implemented. Scotts Valley has adopted amnesty programs for correcting illegal construction, reduced fees for correcting illegal second dwelling units and for tree removal permits and amended regulations to streamline permit processes. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. We have implemented the streamlining of processes. We remain concerned that amnesty programs only encourage more illegal construction and are not sustainable without modifications at the State level on Title 24 energy codes and other similar codes. The City has approached local legislators to carry legislation to address these issues and we will continue to do so.
F15:
This city reports that its city councils have always stressed good customer service. Response: City of Capitola AGREES.
F16:
The city is primarily built out, so certain violations like weed abatement are not an issue. Response: City of Capitola AGREES.
F17:
This city said it is very efficient in issuing permits. Response: City of Capitola AGREES. Watsonville
F18:
This city says it is very customer-oriented. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.
F19:
It issues “over-the-counter” permits for non-complicated residential and commercial additions ranging in size from 500 square feet up to 1,200 square feet, in 20 to 30 minutes. Staff does this with counter reviews on Mondays and Wednesdays. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. Planning and Building Departments’ - 11 Since the survey was completed, as a result of budget constraints, the City has reduced over the counter reviews to Wednesday mornings only.
F20:
It is proactive in code enforcement. All of its inspectors issue stop work notices if they see work without permits. They issue citations for illegal garage conversions. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.
F21:
It has a continuous improvement philosophy of “What can we do to make it better?” Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. County of Santa Cruz
F22:
The county said it is enforcing complex regulations. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F23:
Conditions inherent to the unincorporated areas of the county such as sloping sites, geologic hazards and proximity to riparian corridors (like streams) make it more difficult to compare with a flat city lot. These factors lead to difficulties with people providing adequate plans and addressing these factors. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Not only do difficult rural sites result in difficulties for the public in submitting plans, but they often raise complex issues for staff in the course of the plan review process.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should appoint a qualified board of appeal and review for geologic approval, so the county geologist’s decisions may be reviewed. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The County has been presented no information (including in the Grand Jury Report) to indicate that there is a problem or to justify the recommendation.
R10:
The county should continually improve its processes. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation is currently being implemented, as has been described above.
F24:
The county does not track permits by residential or commercial, but uses other categories. The average time range from application for a permit until issuance is shown in Table 4 on the opposite page. – 12 Planning and Building Departments’ Type Number of days Minor residential remodels and 24 additions less than 500 sq. ft. Major residential additions greater than 38 500 sq. ft. and commercial additions Single family dwellings 49 Commercial tenant improvements 35 Large commercial and multi-unit 70 residential projects Table 4. Average length of time between permit application and issuance, County of Santa Cruz Source: 2003-2004 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Survey Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The data in Table 4 represents the time taken to complete the initial review of a permit, not the time for issuance.
F25:
County officials gave several reasons that permits are not obtained: • Costs (plans, engineering, permit fees, impact fees, fire sprinklers, tax reassessment). • Without fines and penalties, the financial incentive may outweigh any risks. • Some projects are built illegally because they would not qualify for permits. • There is a tradition of owner-built projects without permits, especially in rural areas. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All jurisdictions should commit themselves to making the permitting processes faster, easier and cheaper. Legislative bodies should consider amnesty programs, reduction in fees, reducing restrictions and streamlining permit processes in order to encourage people to build legally and to legalize existing illegal structures. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. It must be remembered that the development permitting process is foremost a regulatory process. The goal of the regulatory intent should be the first priority, then taking the steps necessary to make the process faster, easier and cheaper. The City of Capitola is undertaking an effort to clarify its zoning ordinance, has hired contract staff to ensure timely processing of applications, and charges fees based on actual cost recovery for the project, such that applicants are refunded permit fees if less staff time than anticipated is taken. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Santa Cruz continuously strives to make the permitting process faster and easier by providing personal service and advice, application and educational materials, and outsourced plan checking services at no additional expense. The City’s fee rates for permitting are currently among the lowest in the County. Illegal construction in the City usually involves the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) through conversion of garages or accessory structures without the benefit of permits. To encourage the legal development of ADUs, the City has enacted Zoning Ordinance changes that relax on-site covered parking requirements and make most ADU applications approvable over the counter, thereby avoiding the substantial cost of discretionary use permits. Additionally, the City developed prototype designs and a “how to” handbook for homeowners interested in developing ADUs. The City Council chose to take this proactive approach of facilitating legal development rather than an amnesty program, which implies an aggressive code enforcement effort, due to the lack of staff resources to support an intensive abatement program. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation is being implemented as part of an overall review of the current land use regulations which will take place over the next several years. The Planning and Building Departments’ - 27 first phase of that process, beginning to correct code inconsistencies and errors, has already begun by the Board of Supervisors. As well, the Planning Department is currently reviewing its administrative processes with the intention of simplifying requirements and streamlining processes, where appropriate. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. The recommendation has already been implemented. Scotts Valley has adopted amnesty programs for correcting illegal construction, reduced fees for correcting illegal second dwelling units and for tree removal permits and amended regulations to streamline permit processes. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. We have implemented the streamlining of processes. We remain concerned that amnesty programs only encourage more illegal construction and are not sustainable without modifications at the State level on Title 24 energy codes and other similar codes. The City has approached local legislators to carry legislation to address these issues and we will continue to do so.
F26:
County code enforcement is complaint driven (reactive). Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. While code enforcement actions are generally in response to public complaints, some are as a result of conditions observed by various county staff, including those of the Planning Department. Planning and Building Departments’ - 13 Miscellaneous Findings These findings represent individual views from various jurisdictions. They are listed separately to protect the confidentiality of agencies interviewed.
F27:
Disability accessibility is required by law on new permits, but is not enforced by many jurisdictions. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES. Conversely, Capitola rigorously enforces ADA accessibility requirements. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES. Most/all jurisdictions enforce disability accessibility codes, some better than others. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Disability accessibility regulations are enforced within the unincorporated area and are taken very seriously. The County is not in a position to evaluate how seriously other jurisdictions take the requirements for access for persons with disabilities. Response: City of Scotts Valley DISAGREES. Scotts Valley actively enforces disability accessibility regulations with each building permit and requires improvements to sites as required by State Law. All work for ADA accessibility is required to be completed prior to signing off the final permit. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville enforces both ADA and Title 24 accessibility provisions as required by law.
F28:
Some officials said that more regulations slow growth. Response: City of Capitola AGREES. Generally, the more regulations, the more time it takes to ensure project consistency with applicable regulations. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES. – 14 Planning and Building Departments’ Many new regulations do not adversely affect growth. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The County cannot comment on whether some officials may have said this. However, the County disagrees with the content of the statement. The mere act of enacting new regulations does not in and of itself slow growth. In the unincorporated area, in spite of adopting new land use regulations over the years, the rate of new residential permits has been steady for over ten years. Of course, it is certainly possible, depending on the nature of land use regulations and how they are administered, that the effect can be to slow down the review process for new development applications and ultimately the rate of new development. Response: City of Scotts Valley NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The type of regulation that is in place may or may not slow growth. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY DISAGREES. There remains a fine balance between protecting public health and safety while allowing for growth. Watsonville has strived to find this balance. At times, what is perceived as “more” regulations is actually a streamlining/change of regulations.
F29:
Some officials said that people do not like regulatory agencies. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. Some people do not like regulatory agencies, particularly if regulations impede need or desire of theirs. However, other people do like regulatory agencies, as regulations can ensure public health and safety and maintenance of community standards and values. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES. While most people would rather not have to deal with regulatory agencies, most understand that they are necessary. The problem lies in agencies that make the process overly difficult and expensive. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The County cannot speak to the accuracy of this very general statement. Nevertheless, generally speaking, people often do not like regulatory agencies when Planning and Building Departments’ - 15 they need permission for their own actions, but are supportive of the agencies when they are restricting what their neighbors can do. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. However, there are some people who have been very satisfied with their experiences working with local government. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY DISAGREES. There are many people in Watsonville who appreciate the work of the Department in protecting their place of residence and many times their principal investment. We have customers who do not like to pay fees or to be subject to review by our inspectors; this is the nature of the department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The staff of all jurisdictions should be commended for providing professional services to customers who may dislike them because of the regulatory nature of their jobs. Response: City of Capitola AGREES. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The Board of Supervisors appreciates and shares the Grand Jury’s recognition of the difficulty of regulating land use activities in this county. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. This recommendation does not appear to require any implementation. Thank you for the comment.
F30:
Staff said it performs in a professional manner. Response: City of Capitola AGREES. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County requires employees to act in a professional manner and takes appropriate actions in those limited instances when staff do not comply with County standards of conduct. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.
F31:
Loss of businesses is an issue in the City and County of Santa Cruz as companies move to areas where labor and housing are cheaper. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. Certain types of companies have moved, however other companies and uses continue to be established and to thrive in Santa Cruz. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. – 16 Planning and Building Departments’ The County is concerned about the potential for businesses to relocate to areas with lower housing and labor costs. More likely, our high cost housing area has served to discourage businesses from relocating to our area. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville CANNOT RESPOND. This finding was not directed to Watsonville.
F32:
Some officials said the county takes too long to issue permits. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. The County does seem to take longer than other jurisdictions to issue permits, however it is difficult to conclude that it takes “too long” because every project is different with regard to the constraints and regulations that apply. Lacking firsthand knowledge, it is difficult to generalize. Response: City of Santa Cruz CANNOT RESPOND. The City of Santa Cruz is in no position to comment on this suggestion. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The department is working to improve the time used for processing discretionary permits, and current schedules reflect the complexity of development in the unincorporated area. Response: City of Scotts Valley NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. This response applies to the County of Santa Cruz. Response: City of Watsonville CANNOT RESPOND. This finding was not directed to Watsonville.
F33:
Some officials said that planning and building employees leave the county's jurisdiction to work elsewhere because the county does not provide good customer service. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. Planning and Building Departments’ - 17 The Planning Department conducts informal exit interviews when employees depart. While there have been issues about workload issues and salaries expressed through that process, to our knowledge no one has left due to the county’s performance relative to customer service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The county should take measures to retain good, hardworking staff. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation is currently being implemented, both as has been described earlier and through salary equity actions previously taken by the Board of Supervisors.
F34:
It was reported that there is not enough staff, regular or specialized, to address permit applications in a timely manner, especially during times of increased permit activity. Some projects “fall through the cracks.” Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Capitola, with only one full-time planner responsible for permits, is understaffed in the Community Development Department. However, contract staff is used during times of increased permit activity, and projects do not fall through the cracks. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES. In the City of Santa Cruz this is the rare exception rather than the rule. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. Clearly over the years, as a result of a number of issues, there have been delays in filling vacancies. In some cases, those staff shortages have resulted in longer processing times. However, we are not aware of applications “falling between the cracks.” The County’s extensive computer tracking systems are designed to ensure that all applications are appropriately processed. Response: City of Scotts Valley DISAGREES. While there are times of higher levels of permit activity, when this occurs, it can take longer to obtain a permit. However, projects do not “fall through the cracks” and we actively respond to customers on a regular basis. We employ a “first come, first served” policy. The time to process permits does bear a strong relationship to the completeness and accuracy of the application submitted. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. Budget constraints will always impact these functions. It is also difficult to hire and retain qualified individuals given the high cost of housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
During times of excessive permit activity which result in delays and overburdens staff, jurisdictions should allow applicants to use an approved private sector specialist, such as an engineer or geologist, to perform plan checking in order to expedite the permit process. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Capitola has contracted with a permit planner who is assigned “overflow” projects, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, which is cost-neutral to the applicant. The Building Department does use outside plan checkers for certain projects. Capitola is not generally considered to be slow in processing planning and building permits. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented. For the past 15 years the City of Santa Cruz has employed the services of an outside plan-checking agency, which has the staffing and breadth of professional expertise to handle fluctuations in workload and complex projects. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. – 32 Planning and Building Departments’ This recommendation is being implemented, but in a different fashion than that suggested by the Grand Jury. While the Grand Jury’s concerns regarding reasonable processing times are appropriate, we do not believe that transferring the County’s legal responsibilities to private companies will best solve this problem, and could expose the County to unnecessary liability. Instead, the County is exploring alternative means to staff for predictable seasonal workload peaks. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. The City has already implemented this recommendation. We have a system for outside planning and building services. However, it is important to note that contracting out such services requires notice to unions if it is related to particular bargaining units. The notice process can some times deflate the benefit of using an outside service. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. The City has implemented this recommendation.
F35:
Some staff from different jurisdictions cooperate to solve problems, but some do not. There has been no regional approach to solutions, as has occurred with jurisdictions in the San Jose area. – 18 Planning and Building Departments’ Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES. Staff do cooperate when there is need and opportunity to cooperate; such as with the Housing Element update process, and transportation planning, through the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, and the Regional Transportation Commission. Fundamentally, however, different jurisdictions are each political entities, and decision-making processes in the different jurisdictions can sometimes reflect the different values or priorities of that jurisdiction. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES. Staff meets regularly with other Monterey Bay agencies to develop regional consistency. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. While there is always room for greater inter-jurisdictional cooperation, there is adequate coordination between the jurisdictions on most critical land use issues. There are currently regional discussions regarding transportation issues. The water and land use agencies interact on a regular basis. And, the issue of affordable housing approaches is the most common topic of discussion between the local planning agencies. As well, in the area of land use regulations, local jurisdictions often interact on approaches for designing land use regulations. Response: City of Scotts Valley DISAGREES. We are actively cooperating with many jurisdictions on a variety of issues. Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville has no direct knowledge of a lack of cooperation by jurisdictions. The lack of staffing identified in finding 34 has significantly limited our ability to work on the larger picture issue of regional consistency. Our customer base is made up of primarily local builders and homeowners that see little benefit of having regulations consistent with the City of Santa Cruz as an example; they much prefer getting their project completed in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
All of the jurisdictions in the county should take a regional approach to creating regional standards for applications, permitting, inspections, etc. as has been accomplished in San Jose area jurisdictions. This could streamline processes and provide uniformity and fairness. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. There may be some areas where uniformity could be of benefit to jurisdictions and to applicants. However, different circumstances and different regulations will likely result in continued need for variation of process. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented by the City of Santa Cruz which, along with the City of Capitola, has participated actively in regional efforts of local building officials to standardize methodology for the implementation of codes. These are joint efforts of the Monterey Bay, Peninsula, and East Bay Chapters of the International Code Council. Unfortunately, building officials of the other jurisdictions in Santa Cruz County, including the County, do not regularly participate in these activities. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. While the standard approach Planning and Building Departments’ - 33 method for industrial tenant improvements may have been successful in Santa Clara County, their issues are considerably different than in Santa Cruz County. We believe that the most important issues for Santa Cruz County residents and business owners are clear regulations that are consistently enforced by a staff with a strong customer orientation. We believe that efforts are underway in the Planning Department to make major strides to meet those goals in the next several years. Response: City of Scotts Valley DISAGREES. The City would have to indicate that we could not implement such a system at this time. The City is interested in implementing such a program, and would be happy to participate in and work on developing uniform systems. At this time, however, our staffing levels and budget would not allow us to be in charge of spearheading such an effort and we cannot provide a timeline for setting up such a process. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation has not yet been implemented. We agree that this regional process should occur. We believe that, at minimum, the Monterey County jurisdictions should also be included. We will participate in the process when initiated.
F36:
Santa Cruz County is an expensive place to live compared to median home prices in most other areas. Response: City of Capitola AGREES. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Planning and Building Departments’ - 19 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.
F37:
A comparison of some jobs indicates that Santa Cruz County pays less than other jurisdictions and the private sector: Planner (mid-level, September 2002) • Santa Cruz County $53,184 • City of Santa Cruz $59,964 • Private sector $83,200 • San Mateo County $58,998 • Santa Clara County $62,007 • Monterey County $59,11232 Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. It is necessary to compare the job duties and required skill and experience level of various positions to ensure an “apples to apples” comparison; however it does appear that Santa Cruz County mid-level planner salaries are lower than many other jurisdictions. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County is unable to ascertain the source of the exact numbers cited in the Grand Jury report, but they appear to generally indicate the relative pay of the different jurisdictions in 2002. Since that time, the County has undertaken some equity adjustments with the intention of closing that gap. Response: City of Scotts Valley NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. We have not conducted a salary survey to validate the finding. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY DISAGREES. 32 “County pay at heart of threat: Salary reveals workers often labor for less…” http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2002/September/13/local/stories/021local.htm – 20 Planning and Building Departments’ The City of Watsonville mid level salary for Associate Planner (commensurate with referenced positions) pays approximately $48,000 annually or almost $5,000 less than that noted for Santa Cruz County. Benefits are also a factor and really should be part of the equation when comparing positions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The county should take measures to retain good, hardworking staff. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation is currently being implemented, both as has been described earlier and through salary equity actions previously taken by the Board of Supervisors.
F38:
Twenty-seven cities and two counties in the San Jose area use a Total Quality Management approach by adopting uniform building codes and forms to improve the permit process.33 Response: City of Capitola CANNOT RESPOND. The City of Capitola has no knowledge of that specific arrangement. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The City of Santa Cruz participates in this process. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County is not in a position to agree or disagree with this finding. While there was a concerted effort many years ago to coordinate business-related permits among Santa Clara communities, we are not currently aware of the status of that effort. Response: City of Scotts Valley NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. We participated in the development of the “Smart Building Permit” process in the San Jose area. After participation we found that the issues were closely associated with the large computer corporations that had significant issues with privacy for their business product and large architectural firms working with multiple jurisdictions. The application of this system to our area would most likely not address application processing issues here. We deal more with individual property owners, rather than large corporations and large architectural firms. We agree there can be merit in standardizing systems within our region, however. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. We are aware of the program, but cannot confirm the exact number of jurisdictions employing TQM. Greg Larsen, “Smart Growth in Silicon Valley,” The New Democrat, http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=116&subid=154&contentid=1275 1-March 1999 Planning and Building Departments’ - 21
F39:
Citizens have organized to have more control over the planning process.34 Response: City of Capitola AGREES. Citizen’s groups are an important part of the land use planning process, and decision-makers value the participation of citizen’s groups. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES. This “organization” is off base, as is the challenge to “redtag.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. We are not aware of any citizen groups organized to have “more control over the planning process.” Rather, what we have seen, off and on over the years, are attempts to organize those who have been cited for illegal construction activities in an attempt to simplify what they need to do to justify their illegal construction. Response: City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY DISAGREES. We are aware of some groups who have formed to improve systems at the County of Santa Cruz and City of Santa Cruz. We recently corresponded with one particular group to offer to meet and discuss any issues related with Scotts Valley. They responded that they currently had no issues with Scotts Valley. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY DISAGREES. In the City of Watsonville, we include the community and encourage public involvement in the process from the beginning. Rarely have we been at a point where the community has been forced to organize because there was no other option provided.
F40:
Currently, there are no politically independent advocates or citizen boards available that are specific to planning and building issues and complaints (except for the Civil Grand Jury, which can only make recommendations in a report). Legislators appoint current Planning Commissions. Legislators appoint Building and Fire Boards of review, only address code interpretation, and seldom if ever meet.35 Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. Jondi Gumz, “County’s authority to ‘redtag’ challenged,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1 February 2004, p A-19 35 Santa Cruz County Web site. – 22 Planning and Building Departments’ Although legislators appoint Planning Commissions, there are varying degrees of how “politicized” Planning Commissions become. Some Planning Commissions try to focus on quality land use decisions and consistent interpretation and application of codes, and thus minimize politics in planning. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The County disagrees with this finding and believes that the current situation is appropriate. Citizens are an active part of the public hearing process and participation is vigorous. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. The City agrees with this finding, but also wishes to point out that our process is continually improved and modified in response to citizen comments. As a smaller jurisdiction, Scotts Valley is very accessible to its citizens and can respond to process issues in a timely manner. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville believes in “home rule” and that the residents and voters should have the right to select who and how they are represented and that another board would only increase delays in the development process. The Board of Appeals has, by building code, a very specific role and should be needed seldomly if the building official and staff perform their duties.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The legislative bodies of the cities and county should appoint public boards to review current ordinances and department procedures in order to make recommendations for improvement. The boards should be composed of individuals with a variety of interests throughout the county, to provide fair and balanced assessments and recommendations for improvement and implementation. Examples might include: • One member from a real estate group. • One member from an environmental group. • One member from a builders group. • One member from a public housing group. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Capitola is currently conducting public hearings to update and clarify its zoning ordinance. Members of the public are welcome to attend, and outreach to the design and building community has occurred. Whether a public board as described above is needed should be a decision of each jurisdiction, based upon the significance of the need to improve current ordinances and procedures. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented, because it is not warranted. The City of Santa Cruz already has appointed boards in place to deal with citizen complaints and appeals—the Planning Commission and the Board of Planning and Building Departments’ - 29 Building Appeals. Our staff and management team is usually effective in solving problems of individual customers. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. It is the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to review the current county ordinances. The Planning Director is responsible for making appropriate recommendations relative to changes to those ordinances. The Planning Director is currently pursuing an aggressive strategy to address the deficiencies of the department’s administrative systems. As part of that process, staff is expected to consult with various involved community groups. Response: City of Scotts Valley DISAGREES. We have an alternative process already in place for property and business owners to address the City to consider code/process amendments. This process allows for direct access to the City Council to request the initiation of a Code amendment or change in policy or procedure. The City has been successful in making changes to address issues where the Code was not adequate or too cumbersome. Staff is also encouraged to bring forward Codes, policies or processes that are not working so that they can be improved. We do not believe that such a board could be as effective as our current process. Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES. This will not be implemented in this form. The City has a Planning Commission made up of citizens. The City Council establishes working groups and committees. Overall, the City works well with community members and stakeholder groups. These actions will continue on an “as needed” basis and in response to community demands.
R5:
The legislative bodies should appoint an ombudsman to act as an advocate for the public, and a review board to hear complaints and render authoritative decisions concerning planning and building issues. – 30 Planning and Building Departments’ Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES. Department Directors, City Managers, Planning Commissions, and City Councils presently carry out this function for the City of Capitola. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented, because it is not warranted. As noted in the response to Recommendation 3 above, staff is usually effective in solving our customers’ problems, and review boards already exist to hear complaints and appeals. Response: City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY AGREES. The City has already implemented an alternative form of ombudsman process. We have two existing appeals boards to address building and code enforcement issues, and we offer appeals to planning issues to the Planning Commission. We do agree that these boards are not often used for such issues, but given the low volume of code enforcement issues and the ability for staff to work out issues with applicants in an independent fashion, there is not a volume of problems occurring to warrant establishment of an ombudsman position. Also, the Community Development Director and City Manager serve in a quasi-ombudsman role. If applicants are having problems, they can approach the Community Development Director and City Manager to have their issues addressed. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. City staff has made a preliminary assessment of the concept. However, budget constraints, other priorities and general logistical concerns have delayed any form of implementation. Given current budget constraints, it is unlikely that this will be implemented.
F41:
Jurisdictions do not track performance in such a way that they can use it to compare themselves to other jurisdictions. They do not belong to performance comparison organizations, such as The International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Response: City of Capitola AGREES. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Santa Cruz is able to track its own performance. However, there is not sufficient data from other agencies to compare to. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The issues from one jurisdiction to another are quite different and attempts to establish common methods to track and compare performance are a challenge. Planning and Building Departments’ - 23 That is not to say that a local jurisdiction should not clearly define its own expectations of its operations and measure performance against those goals and benchmark expectations to the extent possible. Response: City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY DISAGREES. We do agree that we do not compare our performance to other jurisdictions, as that information is not readily available to the City of Scotts Valley. However, in Scotts Valley, reports are published on a regular basis to track applications and status of applications. We also are evaluating staff performance by tracking time spent on each particular project. We strongly adhere to the timelines set by the Permit Streamlining Act. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville has found little benefit in utilizing comparison of performance given the uniqueness of each community and the stakeholder groups. The City Manager is a member of ICMA.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The legislative bodies of the cities and county, and the management of their respective Planning and Building Departments should consider policies of Total Quality Management (TQM) to promote teamwork of employees and the public, and continuous improvement of the system. Training and education of employees should emphasize customer service. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. TQM has advantages and disadvantages. Certainly effective management systems should be in place to increase the delivery of services in every department. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Santa Cruz has for years fostered in its employees a culture of customer service and teamwork, which are at the heart of the Total Quality Management concept and similar tools of organizational management. The Department of Planning and Community Development periodically conducts department-wide training emphasizing team building and customer service. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation is being implemented as part of an overall review of the – 28 Planning and Building Departments’ current land use regulations that will take place over the next several years. The first phase of that process, beginning to correct code inconsistencies and errors, has already begun by the Board of Supervisors. As well, the Planning Department is currently reviewing its administrative processes with the intention of simplifying requirements and streamlining processes, where appropriate. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. The City has implemented processes to promote teamwork, improve morale, and to ensure quality communication and responsiveness to our customers. Customer service is emphasized on a daily basis and staff members are evaluated on the basis of their relationships with customers, their ability to process applications in a timely manner, and their relationships with co-workers. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented.
R9:
Uniform departmental performance measures should be established and maintained so a jurisdiction can set goals and gauge how well it is doing. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES. With a staff of three planners for all permits, planning and redevelopment/affordable housing, there is not really any “overlap” in duties for the Capitola planning positions, so “uniform” performance measures for the planners to compare themselves to each other are not relevant here, but could be useful elsewhere. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented, because it is not reasonable. Performance measures would need to relate to the nature, extent, and complexity of the workload, which varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation is currently being implemented. As described earlier, the department is going through a careful evaluation of its procedures and regulations. As part of that process, prior performance goals are being reevaluated and – 34 Planning and Building Departments’ expanded. It is anticipated that these changes will be phased in over the next several years. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. We have already implemented such a system; see our response to Recommendation No. 2. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. The City has implemented this recommendation. We will continue to strive to improve.
F42:
The County Planning Department reviews zoning sections of the County Code. It presented the Board of Supervisors with suggested changes to the County Code to: • Make it clearer. • Give clearer definitions. • Correct grammatical and spelling errors. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. That action was only the first of many actions that will be taken to simplify both the formal regulations and administrative processes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
The County Planning Department should be commended for trying to correct typographical errors, better define terms and make things clearer in the County Code. They should continue to do this, heeding the input of the public. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The Board of Supervisors appreciates and shares the Grand Jury’s recognition of the Planning Department’s efforts to simplify the codes.
F43:
The County Board of Supervisors has made previous attempts to improve the permit process. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Over the years the Board of Supervisors has acted to encourage streamlining of the permit processes while not sacrificing the ability to properly review and condition projects. The Board will continue that effort.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Board of Supervisors should be commended for trying to make the county planning processes better. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The Board appreciates the Grand Jury’s recognition of its efforts.
F44:
The Assessor’s Office is usually notified after a permit for a structure is obtained, but not when it is discovered by a Code Enforcement action. An illegal structure – 24 Planning and Building Departments’ can exist for years, and then be demolished when found out, but without incurring any tax liability. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The Planning Department and Assessor, as part of the new land use tracking system, are developing a system that will allow for such referrals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Planning and Building Departments should notify the County Assessor’s Office when illegal units and structures are discovered, so they may be assessed. Response: City of Capitola AGREES. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented. Staff advises the County Assessor’s Office upon sending a Notice of Violation to a property owner and also provides to the Assessor’s Office a copy of the building official’s Notice and Order detailing illegal conditions and activities. Planning and Building Departments’ - 31 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation is being implemented. The Planning Department and Assessor, as part of the new land use tracking system, will develop a system that will allow for such referrals. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES. The City has implemented a process to forward copies of permits that result from our code enforcement process to the Assessor. Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. Once the City is aware of the illegal construction, we are obligated to abate the problem. The Assessor’s Office receives notice of demolition and building permits so as to maintain their records. The act of assessing individuals for illegal construction creates an inherent conflict with enforcement. One County government entity acknowledges and taxes while the City cites and abates it. The Assessor’s Office should report illegal construction to the City. Furthermore, Assessor’s records should be available for public review as a public record without owner consent for better disclosure and accountability.
F45:
All California counties must produce Housing Elements. A Housing Element is a plan that discusses how the county will accommodate its fair share of growth. The fair share of growth is set by the state. The county has not had a state-certified Housing Element for 10 years. Its current proposed Housing Element is undergoing corrections and clarifications requested by the State of California. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County remains committed to receiving certification of its Housing Element. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
The County Planning Department staff should be commended for its hard work on the Santa Cruz County Housing Element. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. – 36 Planning and Building Departments’ The Board of Supervisors appreciates and shares the Grand Jury’s recognition of the Planning Department’s efforts to obtain certification of the Housing Element.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R18:
People who do the hard work of getting permits to make their communities safe and legal, thereby preserving the value of their neighborhoods and paying their share of taxes resulting from getting permits, should be commended.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
There are an estimated 80,000 portable classrooms in use in California.10 Santa Cruz County has over 600 portable classrooms in use. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Portable and classroom are not necessarily synonymous as many portables are not used as classrooms and some may not be in use at all or not in use during the entire school year. The Grand Jury supports this statement in finding #2.
F2:
Locally, portable classrooms are not used exclusively for classrooms. Some are used for district offices, music, art, computer labs and a library. At least one school is entirely made up of portables and one school has no portables. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District (BDUESD) does not know about the other portables, but each of the two on the BDUESD campuses are used fewer than seven hours per week for instrumental music lessons. One portable is also used for approximately two weeks each year during a computer robotics project. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Response: Mountain Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. California Air Resources Board and California Department of Health Services study. Portable Classroom Investigation - 5 MESD is not aware of what other districts do. We use portables for classrooms, music, Independent Study Program, Resource Specialist, Speech, School Psychologist and day care. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. Currently, Pacific Elementary School uses three portable buildings. The buildings are used for the following reasons: Preschool classroom, Independent Study classroom, After School Care and Recreation, Title I Intervention tutorials, music lessons. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. The District has 90 portables used as offices, library, child care, MHS child care, Healthy Start, restrooms and storage areas. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. It should be noted that fifteen of the oldest portable classrooms in SLVUSD were demolished in July 2004. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The Scotts Valley Unified School District does not use portables for district office space. Portables are used on each school campus. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F3:
The age of portables in Santa Cruz County ranges from one month old to 50 years old. Several school districts replace portables when they have been in use for 15 years. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The BDUESD is not familiar with the other portables, but the two on its campus were leased in January of 1992 then purchased by the district in September of l998. They currently remain in place. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. - 6 Portable Classroom Investigation Response: Mountain Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. MESD is not aware of what other districts do. Our oldest portable has been in use since 1988—16 years. It has been updated with modernization. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. Two of the portable buildings in the district are 29 years old and have undergone considerable remodeling, however, the district is researching funding for replacement. The third building is four years old. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. The ages of the District’s portables range from being a few months old to 39 years old. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. 1) The oldest portables in SLVUSD were demolished in 2004, and 2) We have no information on other districts’ portable classrooms. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The range in age of the district's portables is from one year old to 24 years old. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F4:
The EPA has not set guidelines for portable classroom air quality. However, several school districts have had their portable air quality tested. The results have shown that air quality in the portables is within the same ranges as regular classrooms. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The BDUESD does not know about the portables in other school districts. There have been no complaints or concerns expressed regarding the air quality in the two portables on the campus. If any arise in the future, the company that monitors District premises for environmental concerns will be contacted. Portable Classroom Investigation - 7 Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. Pacific School District has not had air quality in the portables tested. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. We agree that the air quality in portable classrooms is typical of what is in regular classrooms. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District agrees with finding only as it pertains to SLVUSD portable classrooms. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F5:
The best way to ensure good air quality is to use the HVAC system (a machine which pumps heated or cooled air into the classroom). The HVAC system must be maintained for greatest effectiveness.11 In Santa Cruz County, schools clean their HVAC systems from once every four months to once a year. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The BDUESD does not know about the portables in other school districts. The HVAC systems are cleaned annually in the district. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. California Air Resources Board and California Department of Health Services study. - 8 Portable Classroom Investigation The HVAC systems are cleaned annually in the district. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. Our standards include the following action plan: • We establish a 20% fresh air supply. • We have one person dedicated to change air filters twice a year. Therefore, filters, damper and condensation drains are inspected bi-annually. • Added benefit is any mechanical failures are caught and reported directly to department, therefore, more rapid repair, less downtime and better environment condition. • New filters are designed to run for nine months. • All portables connected to EM system are turned on one hour before occupancy and off ½ hour before departure. • Ongoing effort toward standardization of equipment throughout the district. • Procedure for keeping inventory for repairs on hand. • Majority of 349 portables have individual programmable thermostats. • We manually check all portables four times a year and check thermostats. • Adjust temperature to class schedule. • Program is 15 minutes before occupancy and turned off at the end of class. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District agrees with this finding only as it pertains to SLVUSD portable classrooms. It should be noted that different HVAC systems have different maintenance requirements. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F6:
New portable classrooms contain outgasing pollutants such as formaldehyde and chloroform, used in carpets.12 Most local schools said that portables are not occupied for several weeks, allowing outgasing to take place. In addition, portables are not used until the HVAC system has been operating for up to 98 consecutive hours at a moderate temperature. One school does not occupy a portable building 12 Environmental Health Conditions in California’s Portable Classrooms Report. Portable Classroom Investigation - 9 until it is released by the Inspector of Record as habitable. Districts have the option to request portables that contain lower toxic chemical levels for classroom purposes. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The BDUESD is unfamiliar with portables in other districts. Its two portables have been in place for multiple years. There are no current plans to replace them. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. The newest portable building had carpets installed that did not contain formaldehyde, however, the room was not occupied for several weeks after installation. The older buildings are scheduled for carpet replacement. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. The District will not occupy any portable turned over by the contractor/ manufacturer until the punch list is completed and the HVAC unit has run for seven days/168 hours at a moderate temperature, and then the construction filter is replaced and the room, walls, floors, casework have been cleaned as well. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District agrees with this finding only as it pertains to SLVUSD portable classrooms. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
When replacing portable classrooms, schools should request environmentally cleaner portable classrooms. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District AGREES. There are no plans to replace or request additional portable classrooms in the BDUESD. Should such a decision arise, environmentally cleaner portable classrooms would be requested. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented in Live Oak School District programs portable class sites. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. MESD agrees with this recommendation and will endeavor to implement with acquisition of future portables. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. This recommendation will be implemented in Pacific School District. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. We agree with this recommendation, and it has been implemented. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. This recommendation is implemented to all degrees possible. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented in COE programs portable class sites. While in agreement with the concept of the recommendation, each individual district will respond to their particular situation. - 36 Portable Classroom Investigation Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. This recommendation is already being implemented in San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented in Scotts Valley Unified School District. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. While the District is in agreement with the concept of the recommendation, each situation in which portables are introduced to a school site is unique. The need and availability of portables, especially those that will truly be used for short-term purposes, is a factor in selection of specific portable buildings.
F7:
Portable classrooms are exempt from having sprinkler systems for a three-year period. This exemption can be renewed every three years.13 Some Santa Cruz 13 California Educational Code 17074.54. - 10 Portable Classroom Investigation County portable classrooms have no sprinkler system. All portables must have a working fire alarm. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. Both of the BDUESD portables have working fire alarm systems. One portable is equipped with a sprinkler system. The District will investigate the installation of a sprinkler system in the other. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Although the report does not identify the portable classrooms that have no sprinkler system, it should be noted that Education Code 17074.52 exempts portables that are used as single classrooms and sited more than 25 feet from any other building, including any other portable building, from being equipped with a sprinkler system. Education Code requires that the system in such a building consist of an automatic fire detection and alarm system. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. Although the report does not identify the portable classrooms that have no sprinkler system, it should be noted that Education Code 17074.52 exempts portables that are used as single classrooms and sited more than 25 feet from any other building, including any other portable building from being equipped with a sprinkler system. Education Code requires that the system in such a building consist of an automatic fire detection and alarm system. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. Due to the average response time for fire & rescue within the district (even though the school site is actually located within a block of the local fire station) the newest portable building was built with two-hour fire walls, as required by the State Architect. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. All of the District’s portables have a fire alarm system unless they are in storage or being used for storage. The District has only a few portables with sprinkler systems. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Portable Classroom Investigation - 11 Although the report does not identify the portable classrooms that have no sprinkler system, it should be noted that Education Code 17074.52 exempts portables that are used as single classrooms and sited more than 25 feet from any other building, including any other portable building from being equipped with a sprinkler system. Education Code requires that the system in such a building consist of an automatic fire detection and alarm system. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District agrees with this finding only as it pertains to SLVUSD portable classrooms. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. Although the report does not identify the portable classrooms that have no sprinkler system, it should be noted that Education Code 17074.52 exempts portables that are used as single classrooms and sited more than 25 feet from any other building, including any other portable building from being equipped with a sprinkler system. Education Code requires that the system in such a building consist of an automatic fire detection and alarm system. As required by the Division of State Architecture (DSA), modular classrooms (10) at Scotts Valley High School do have sprinklers. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. Although the report does not identify the portable classrooms that have no sprinkler system, it should be noted that Education Code 17074.52 exempts portables that are used as single classrooms and sited more than 25 feet from any other building, including any other portable building, from being equipped with a sprinkler system. Education Code requires that the system in such a building consist of an automatic fire detection and alarm system.
F8:
The California Education Code 17077.10 requires all classrooms to have a telephone. Eighty-three percent of local portable classrooms do not have a telephone, although some do have an intercom. One district reported that at one school site, the permanent portables have phones but the temporary portables have no phones. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District AGREES. Both of the District’s portables have working telephones. Response: Live Oak School District PARTIALLY AGREES. All classrooms in the Live Oak School District have telephones including portable classrooms. - 12 Portable Classroom Investigation Although the Live Oak School District agrees that telephone connection to a public switched network is a worthy goal and an added element to ensuring student safety, Education Code 17077.10 does not require all classrooms to have a telephone. E.C. 17077.10 states: (a) it is a goal of the Legislature to eventually enhance pupil safety by equipping all elementary and secondary school classrooms with a telephone hook connected to a public switched network and (d) commencing with applications submitted on or after January 1, 2000, any school district applying for funding pursuant to this chapter shall include in its plans and specifications for construction of a new or modernized school building…a hard-wired connection to a public switched telephone network in each new or modernized classroom. Response: Mountain Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. MESD is not aware of what other districts provide. All portables on our campus have both telephones and intercom access. However, Education Code 17077.10 does not require all classrooms to have a telephone. E.C. 17077.10 states: (a) it is a goal of the Legislature to eventually enhance pupil safety by equipping all elementary and secondary school classrooms with a telephone hook connected to a public switched network and (d) commencing with applications submitted on or after January 1, 2000, any school district applying for funding pursuant to this chapter shall include in its plans and specifications for construction of a new or modernized school building…a hard-wired connection to a public switched telephone network in each new or modernized classroom. Response: Pacific School District PARTIALLY AGREES. Education Code 17077.10 does not require all classrooms to have a telephone. E.C. 17077.10 states: (a) it is a goal of the Legislature to eventually enhance pupil safety by equipping all elementary and secondary school classrooms with a telephone hook connected to a public switched network and (d) commencing with applications submitted on or after January 1, 2000, any school district applying for funding pursuant to this chapter shall include in its plans and specifications for construction of a new or modernized school building a hard-wired connection to a public telephone network in each new or modernized classroom. All portable classrooms in Pacific School District are equipped with telephones. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The District installs a phone or an intercom system or both in every portable temporary or not. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District PARTIALLY AGREES. Portable Classroom Investigation - 13 CA Ed Code seems to imply that telephones in portable classrooms is a desirable goal, however, CA Ed Code does not seem to require telephones in portable classrooms at this time. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education PARTIALLY AGREES. Although the County Office of Education agrees that telephone connection to a public switched network is a worthy goal and an added element to ensuring student safety, Education Code 17077.10 does not require all classrooms to have a telephone. E.C. 17077.10 states: (a) it is a goal of the Legislature to eventually enhance pupil safety by equipping all elementary and secondary school classrooms with a telephone hook connected to a public switched network and (d) commencing with applications submitted on or after January 1, 2000, any school district applying for funding pursuant to this chapter shall include in its plans and specifications for construction of a new or modernized school building…a hard- wired connection to a public switched telephone network in each new or modernized classroom. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES. California Education Code 17077.10 does not require all classrooms to have telephones. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. Although the Scotts Valley Unified School District agrees that telephone connection to a public switched network is a worthy goal and an added element to ensuring student safety, Education Code 17077.10 does not require all classrooms to have a telephone. E.C. 17077.10 states: (a) it is a goal of the Legislature to eventually enhance pupil safety by equipping all elementary and secondary school classrooms with a telephone hook connected to a public switched network and (d) commencing with applications submitted on or after January 1, 2000, any school district applying for funding pursuant to this chapter shall include in its plans and specifications for construction of a new or modernized school building…a hard- wired connection to a public switched telephone network in each new or modernized classroom. All portable classrooms have both phone and intercom. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District partially AGREES. Although the Soquel Union Elementary School District agrees that telephone connection to a public switched network is a worthy goal and an added element to ensuring student safety, Education Code 17077.10 does not require all classrooms to have a telephone. E.C. 17077.10 states: (a) it is a goal of the Legislature to - 14 Portable Classroom Investigation eventually enhance pupil safety by equipping all elementary and secondary school classrooms with a telephone hook connected to a public switched network and (d) commencing with applications submitted on or after January 1, 2000, any school district applying for funding pursuant to this chapter shall include in its plans and specifications for construction of a new or modernized school building…a hard- wired connection to a public switched telephone network in each new or modernized classroom.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
All portable classrooms should have telephones. Response: The Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District AGREES. Both portables in the district have working telephones. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. This recommendation is implemented in Live Oak School District portable classrooms. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. This recommendation is implemented at portable classrooms operated by MESD programs. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. This recommendation is implemented in portable classrooms in Pacific School District. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. All of our assigned instructional classroom facilities, be they portable or a regular facility, are equipped with emergency communications to the site’s main office. The majority of our classrooms (and our standard regarding replacements and upgrades) have telephones being installed. Portable Classroom Investigation - 37 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Implemented or in process. Response: Santa Cruz Office of Education AGREES. This recommendation is implemented in COE programs portable classrooms. As evidenced in the Grand Jury’s Finding #8, not all district portables are equipped with a phone. Each district will address the recommendation in their individual district responses. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. It is the goal of the San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District to install telephones in all classrooms by 2006. Half of our schools have already met this goal. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. This recommendation is implemented in Scotts Valley Unified School District portable classrooms. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. With our modernization and bond projects currently underway, Soquel can say that this recommendation is implemented in its portable classrooms that are in regular use as classrooms or workstations. Upon occasion we bring in temporary portables, such as during construction, that may not be fully equipped with telephone service.
F9:
All portables have natural lighting. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District AGREES. Both of the portables in the BDUESD have natural lighting. The status of other districts is not known. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. All portable classrooms in Pacific School District have natural lighting provided by sufficient windows. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. All of the District’s portables have natural lighting and windows that open as well. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F10:
Two-thirds of the county’s portable classrooms have a sink, but all students have access to drinking water. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Portable Classroom Investigation - 15 The two BDUESD portables do not have sinks, but all students have access to drinking water. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. All portable classrooms in Pacific School District have sinks and drinking water. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. All portable rooms have access to drinking water. Elementary school portables that don't have a drinking water source are supplied with bottled water. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District agrees with this finding only as it pertains to SLVUSD portable classrooms. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES.
F11:
The same janitorial cleaning standards are used for both portable and regular classrooms. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District AGREES. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. We agree that the same custodial standards are used in both portables and regular classrooms. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. - 16 Portable Classroom Investigation Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District agrees with this finding only as it pertains to SLVUSD portable classrooms. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F12:
The HVAC system is operated by maintenance staff at most sites. Maintenance personnel keep records of all HVAC work performed. In one district an HVAC Specialist is responsible for ensuring effective ventilation. The Director of Maintenance and Operations supervises the work. Another district employs an HVAC Maintenance Technician whose primary job responsibility is to repair and service all district HVAC equipment. Teachers can also request training for HVAC systems, according to some districts. One district said that its custodians have no training in HVAC systems. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The BDUESD HVAC system is operated by maintenance and custodial personnel. Outside services are contracted with as needed. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Custodians in the Live Oak School District have training in HVAC systems. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. At Mountain, the maintenance staff is responsible for operating and maintaining the HVAC system. We also employ local service companies to repair and service our systems. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. Pacific School District hires a local HVAC Maintenance Service to monitor needs and service equipment. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. We agree that our maintenance staff keep records of HVAC work performed. All of the worked performed on portables is supervised by the M&O supervisory staff. In Portable Classroom Investigation - 17 most of our portables, teachers have full access to the thermostats, and we show them how to operate them to set the temperature. Portables that are connected to our EMS have HVAC programming as outlined in 5 above. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District agrees with this finding only as it pertains to SLVUSD portable classrooms. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. Some routine maintenance is done by district wide staff. Other maintenance is performed by outside HVAC contractors. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F13:
No local agency tracks student or staff illness in either portable or regular classrooms. Some schools track illness upon complaint about a particular portable. One district said it doesn’t track illness because medical privacy laws restrict the ability to track student or teacher health issues. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The BDUESD monitors student and staff illnesses and responds when patterns of illnesses indicate a need. No complaints have been made regarding portable buildings. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. As noted in the finding, most districts track reported illness originating from a particular building or classroom. In many instances, however, the student and teacher population may be migratory in that they may utilize multiple classrooms/buildings during any given day. Although privacy restrictions do apply to an individual record, illnesses can be tracked in terms of numbers without identifying particular individuals. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. As noted in the finding, most districts track reported illness originating from a particular building or classroom. In many instances, however, the student and - 18 Portable Classroom Investigation teacher population may be migratory in that they may utilize multiple classrooms/buildings during any given day. Although privacy restrictions do apply to an individual record, illnesses can be tracked in terms of numbers without identifying particular individuals. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. Pacific School District monitors student and staff illnesses and responds when patterns of illnesses indicate a need. No complaints have been made regarding portable buildings. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. We agree with the findings that we don't have the ability to track illness related to portable buildings. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. As noted in the finding, most districts track reported illness originating from a particular building or classroom. In many instances, however, the student and teacher population may be migratory in that they may utilize multiple classrooms/buildings during any given day. Although privacy restrictions do apply to an individual record, illnesses can be tracked in terms of numbers without identifying particular individuals. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District agrees with this finding only as it pertains to SLVUSD portable classrooms. If alerted by staff or parents, SLVUSD will track reported illness originating from a particular classroom. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. As noted in the finding, most districts track reported illness originating from a particular building or classroom. In many instances, however, the student and teacher population may be migratory in that they may utilize multiple classrooms/buildings during any given day. Although privacy restrictions do apply to an individual record, illnesses can be tracked in terms of numbers without identifying particular individuals. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. Portable Classroom Investigation - 19 As noted in the finding, most districts track reported illness originating from a particular building or classroom. In many instances, however, the student and teacher population may be migratory in that they may utilize multiple classrooms/buildings during any given day. Although privacy restrictions do apply to an individual record, illnesses can be tracked in terms of numbers without identifying particular individuals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Schools or districts should try to determine whether portable classrooms are causing an increase in illness or absenteeism. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District AGREES. This recommendation is being implemented. Illness and absenteeism are carefully monitored, and no link between portable classrooms and illnesses has been found. This monitoring will continue. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Responding for Santa Cruz Live Oak School District programs located in portable classrooms, the recommendation is implemented. Class illnesses are monitored, Portable Classroom Investigation - 29 and administrators report any indications that the environment may be a contributing factor. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. This recommendation is implemented. Class illnesses are monitored, and the administrator reports any indications that the environment may be a contributing factor. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. This recommendation is being implemented. Illness and absenteeism is carefully monitored at Pacific School, and no link between portable classrooms and illnesses has been found. We will continue this monitoring. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. To determine if portable classrooms are causing an increase in illness or absenteeism as suggested in our 400 portable facilities would require us to have a comprehensive listing of the contact time each student and or staff member had/has in instructional facilities of the District. To perform this large recordkeeping task districtwide would be a major undertaking for both the instructional and support staff of the District. It would be far more practical to perform a pilot study at one or two of our elementary school sites where students have a relatively fixed room assignment. Standards regarding the type of illness and/or absence to be included would have to be developed as a person with a broken bone related to a skiing accident would have no relationship to a portable classroom assignment. Legal considerations involving the reason for the illness and/or absences would have to be discussed with counsel as the right to privacy and confidential information could be compromised. We believe that the complexity and costs associated with doing such a study could likely outweigh any benefits gained by same. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. This recommendation is implemented. Illnesses are monitored and teachers, administrators and/or parents contribute indicators that the environment may be a contributing factor. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Responding for Santa Cruz County Office of Education programs located in portable classrooms, the recommendation is implemented. Class illnesses are monitored and administrators report any indications that the environment may be a contributing factor. - 30 Portable Classroom Investigation The recommendation will be addressed in responses by each district as to their individual district procedures in monitoring illness in portable classrooms. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District will continue to monitor absenteeism whether students are housed in permanent or portable classrooms. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. The recommendation is being implemented. Class illnesses are monitored and administrators report any indications that the environment may be a contributing factor. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. Responding for Soquel Union Elementary School District programs located in portable classrooms, the recommendation is implemented. Administrators report any indications that the environment may be a contributing factor.
F14:
Many teachers use the same portable classroom for several years. Some schools rotate their teachers out of portables. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The BDUESD’s portables have not been utilized as regular classrooms for many years and are only used intermittently for instrumental music lessons and computer robotics. (See response to statement #2) Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. Pacific School District has not rotated teachers out of the portable buildings because of the district’s small size and number of classrooms. Teachers prefer to remain in the same location and have classroom setups that do not need to be reorganized. Each classroom is selected to best meet the needs of the teachers and students occupying them, for example, the preschool has an age-appropriate play yard and the After School Rec. building is near the playing field and playground. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. We have found that there is almost an ownership of the classroom. Often we have found as strong a feeling from a teacher to keep "their" portable class room as we have found teachers who don't want to teach in regular class rooms. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District agrees with this finding only as it pertains to SLVUSD portable classrooms. - 20 Portable Classroom Investigation Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. Teachers are rotated based on the program, enrollment and staffing needs at each school. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F15:
The areas beneath portables are closed or skirted to deter animals from going under the portable classroom. Sometimes this skirt can wick moisture from the soil beneath the portable and cause problems. Areas beneath portables are checked for damage annually or upon the request of a teacher. If there is damage or anything unusual is noted, such as an odor or mildew, the teacher fills out a “request for maintenance” form at which time maintenance is performed. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The BDUESD is unfamiliar with the portables in other districts, but inspections of portables are a part of routine maintenance. The teacher, other staff, or visitors to the campus may also report a suspected problem. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. Inspection of portables and other buildings are a part of routine maintenance. Reporting a suspected problem is not limited to teachers but may be filed by the teacher, other staff, parent or community member. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. Inspection of portables and other buildings are a part of routine maintenance. Teachers or other staff report suspected problems to the Administrator, who monitors all maintenance needs. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. We agree with this finding except that reporting a suspected problem is not only limited to teachers but may be filed by other staff (and parents) as well. The reporting of a suspected problem is always investigated and often leads to inspections of other portable buildings. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Portable Classroom Investigation - 21 Inspection of portables and other buildings are a part of routine maintenance. Reporting a suspected problem is not limited to teachers but may be filed by the teacher or other staff. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District agrees with this finding only as it pertains to SLVUSD portable classrooms. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. Inspection of portables and other buildings are a part of routine maintenance. Reporting a suspected problem is not limited to teachers but may be filed by the teacher or other staff. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. Inspection of portables and other buildings are a part of routine maintenance. Reporting a suspected problem is not limited to teachers but may be filed by the teacher or other staff.
F16:
Water damage promotes mold and bacteria growth, which have been linked to possible illnesses. Type I allergy to mold reportedly affects between two and 30 percent of those with allergies. Culture studies have been performed to examine the prevalence and identity of mold contamination in the indoor environment. In one study, cladosporium, penicillium, and alternaria were found to be the predominating airborne fungi present, each being detectable in more than 75% of the structures studied. The study suggested that when a level of 700 colony-forming units per cubic meter of indoor air was exceeded, higher incidences of allergic reactions and eye, nose and throat irritation are encountered.14 Portables are checked for water damage at least once a year or upon the request of a staff member. Most schools said maintenance problems in portable classrooms are tracked through district work orders. Some schools or districts said there have been mold, ventilation or poor air quality problems in the past. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The BDUESD portables are inspected on a yearly basis. There have been no reports of complaints or suspected problems in the two portables. If some arise, the 14 Samet and Spengler, Indoor Air Pollution: A Health Perspective. - 22 Portable Classroom Investigation company that monitors the premises for environmental concerns will be contacted for an inspection. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Finding 17 supports that districts address air quality monitoring and testing. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. When there have been comments about water leaks or odor issues in the portables, we have immediately repaired damage and have had the portable checked for mold and other dangerous substances, replacing carpets, repainting, etc. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. Although there have been no complaints or suspected problems, Pacific School District will research services to test air quality this school year in response to this finding. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. We agree with this finding that there is evidence that high levels of mold can result in higher incidence of allergic reactions. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Finding 17 supports that districts address air quality monitoring and testing. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District agrees with this finding only as it pertains to SLVUSD portable classrooms. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. Finding 17 supports that districts address air quality monitoring and testing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
Schools should use the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Tools for Schools programs for controlling air quality. This is available through the EPA Web site. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education has determined that this recommendation requires further analysis, saying that there are alternatives to the Tools for Schools Kit provided by the EPA. The BDUESD will work with the SCCOE to compare the various products available before committing to the Tools for Schools program. Response: Live Oak School District PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. There are many alternatives to the Tools for Schools Kit provided by the EPA and responsible comparisons of the various products available should be made by the districts prior to committing to the Tools for Schools program. Response: Mountain Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. There are many alternatives to the Tools for Schools Kit provided by the EPA, and responsible comparisons of the various products available should be made by the districts prior to committing to the Tools for Schools program. Portable Classroom Investigation - 31 Response: Pacific School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education has determined that this recommendation requires further analysis, saying that there are alternatives to the Tools for Schools Kit provided by the EPA. Pacific School District will work with the SCCOE to compare the various products available before committing to the Tools for Schools program. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. We use parts of the States EPA's recommended programs to perform our school site inspections and repairs presently. There are many alternatives to the Tools for Schools Kit provided by the EPA and responsible comparisons of the various products available so further analysis is needed before totally adopting the "Tools for Schools Kit". Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. There is an array of programs for controlling air quality. Ongoing investigation and research will inform SCCSD as to the most effective and efficient programs available. Response: Santa Cruz Office of Education PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. There are many alternatives to the Tools for Schools Kit provided by the EPA, and responsible comparisons of the various products available should be made by the districts prior to committing to the Tools for Schools program. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY DISAGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District is not able to commit to such a recommendation without further study of other available tools created specifically for school district use. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. There are many alternatives to the Tools for Schools Kit provided by the EPA and responsible comparisons of the various products available will be made prior to committing to the Tools for Schools program. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. - 32 Portable Classroom Investigation This recommendation requires further analysis. There are many alternatives to the Tools for Schools Kit provided by the EPA and responsible comparisons of the various products available should be made prior to committing to the Tools for Schools program.
R3:
Schools and districts should inform teachers, staff, parents and the public about the recent study by the state DHS and ARB (“Environmental Health Conditions in California’s Portable Classrooms”). Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The County Office of Education has determined that this recommendation requires further analysis. The County Office of Education staff will examine the DHS and ARB study and, if determined appropriate, will place instructions on how to access the study or provide a link on the County Office of Education web site. The BDUESD will follow the instructions of the County Office when this study is complete. Response: Live Oak School District PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The County Office of Education staff will examine the DHS and ARB study and, if determined appropriate, will place instructions on how to access the study or provide a link on the County Office of Education web site. Timeframe: six months or sooner. Response: Mountain Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The MESD staff will examine the DHS and ARB study and, if determined appropriate, will place instructions on how to access the study or provide a link on our web site. Timeframe: six months or sooner. Response: Pacific School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education has determined that this recommendation requires further analysis. The County Office of Education staff will examine the DHS and ARB study and, if determined appropriate, will place instructions on how to access the study or provide a link on the County Office of Education web site. Pacific School District will follow the instructions of the County Office when this study is complete. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. Portable Classroom Investigation - 33 We already recommend the DHS and ARB report to all inquires regarding portable buildings and/or environmental quality. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/pcs/pcs.htm. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. Both the State DGS and ARB are presently accessible by teachers, staff, parents and the public. Perhaps the COE could identify and provide access countywide. Response: Santa Cruz Office of Education PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The County Office of Education staff will examine the DHS and ARB study and, if determined appropriate, will place instructions on how to access the study or provide a link on the County Office of Education web site. Timeframe: six months or sooner. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY DISAGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District is not able to commit to such a recommendation without examining the DHS and ARB studies. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The County Office of Education staff and District staff will examine the DHS and ARB study and, if determined appropriate, will place instructions on how to access the study or provide a link on the District web site. Timeframe: March 1, 2005. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The Soquel Union Elementary School District staff will examine the DHS and ARB study and, if determined appropriate, will place instructions on how to access the study or provide a link on the Soquel Union Elementary School District web site.
R4:
Schools should ventilate portable classrooms regularly to increase air quality. “Indoor Air Pollution, A Health Perspective” recommends controlling indoor mold contamination by creating an indoor environment unfavorable to mold growth. Potential substrates for mold growth should be removed or kept scrupulously clean. Indoor humidity and accumulation of indoor aeroallergens should be combated with good indoor ventilation. Air conditioning may act to decrease indoor exposure to mold spores from the outside. In addition, local schools should clean HVAC systems according to manufacturer’s recommendations. - 34 Portable Classroom Investigation Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District AGREES. This recommendation is implemented in the BDUESD portable classrooms. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. This recommendation is implemented at portable classrooms operated by Live Oak School District programs. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. This recommendation is implemented at portable classrooms operated by MESD programs. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. This recommendation is implemented in portable classrooms in Pacific School District. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. We agree in part with this recommendation, we whole heartedly support and have implemented a program to assure increased air circulation in portables, see item 5 above. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation is partially implemented. HVAC systems not always cleaned as frequently as manufacturers recommend. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. This recommendation is implemented at portable classrooms operated by COE programs. While the COE agrees with the recommendations made, each individual district will respond according to their particular situation. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. This recommendation is already being implemented in San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. Portable Classroom Investigation - 35 This recommendation is implemented at portable classrooms operated by Scotts Valley Unified School District programs. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. This recommendation is generally implemented in portable classrooms operated by the district, although some of the older portables do not have air conditioning.
F17:
supports that districts address air quality monitoring and testing. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. When there have been comments about water leaks or odor issues in the portables, we have immediately repaired damage and have had the portable checked for mold and other dangerous substances, replacing carpets, repainting, etc. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. Although there have been no complaints or suspected problems, Pacific School District will research services to test air quality this school year in response to this finding. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. We agree with this finding that there is evidence that high levels of mold can result in higher incidence of allergic reactions. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES.
F18:
All school districts must provide a written report annually of the pesticides in use on school sites.15 One district reported that any toxic cleaning products, pesticides or fertilizers used are listed in the Material Safety Data Sheets, kept at each site. Parents and staff are notified in writing and the site is posted if any pesticides or fertilizers are used during the school calendar days. No highly toxic cleaners are used in this district’s classrooms. Another district said it abides by the state regulations regarding pesticide use in schools. The list of toxic products that may and may not be used as well as the posting requirements are covered in these regulations. This district uses pesticides only to abate a known and specific problem, not for general upkeep. In addition, the grounds are fertilized in the summer and spring during school breaks. A third school district uses environment-friendly products such as EcoExempt HC (active ingredient: clove oil, purpose: weed control), EcoExempt (active ingredient: rosemary oil, purpose: insect control) and ZP Rodent Bait AG (active ingredient: zinc phosphide, purpose: gopher control). Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The Healthy Schools Act of 2000 does not require that all schools annually report pesticide use on campus. Education Code Section 17611 requires that each school site maintain records of all pesticide use at the school site for a period of four years and shall make the information available to the public upon request. Education Code 17612 requires that the school district designee shall annually provide to all staff and parents or guardians of pupils enrolled at a school site, a written notification of the name of all pesticide products expected to be applied at the school facility during the upcoming year. Section 17612(a)(2) requires that if a pesticide product not included in the annual notification is subsequently intended for use at the school site, the school district designee shall, at least 72 hours prior to application, provide written notification of the intended use. The BDUESD avoids the use of pesticides when school is in session. Records of any pesticide use are maintained. These are available to the public upon request. If any pesticides are to be used (to abate specific problems) during the school year, written notification of the substance and its intended use will be given to the parents. An annual written report of pesticides in use at the school is published. Healthy Schools Act of 2000. - 24 Portable Classroom Investigation Response: Live Oak School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The Healthy Schools Act of 2000 does not require that all schools annually report pesticide use on campus. The act requires that those school districts that voluntarily adopt an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program to include record keeping and program review in their program (E.C. 17608 and Food and Agricultural Code Section 13183). Education Code Section 17611 does require that each school site maintain records of all pesticide use at the school site for a period of four years and shall make the information available to the public upon request. Education Code 17612 requires that the school district designee shall annually provide to all staff and parents or guardians of pupils enrolled at a school site, a written notification of the names of all pesticide products expected to be applied at the school facility during the upcoming year. Section 17612(a)(2) requires that if a pesticide product not included in the annual notification is subsequently intended for use at the school site, the school district designee shall, at least 72 hours prior to application, provide written notification of the intended use. Response: Mountain Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The Healthy Schools Act of 2000 does not require that all schools annually report pesticide use on campus. The act requires that those school districts that voluntarily adopt an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program to include record keeping and program review in their program (E.C. 17608 and Food and Agricultural Code Section 13183). Education Code Section 17611 does require that each school site maintain records of all pesticide use at the school site for a period of four years and shall make the information available to the public upon request. Education Code 17612 requires that the school district designee shall annually provide to all staff and parents or guardians of pupils enrolled at a school site, a written notification of the names of all pesticide products expected to be applied at the school facility during the upcoming year. Section 17612(a)(2) requires that if a pesticide product not included in the annual notification is subsequently intended for use at the school site, the school district designee shall, at least 72 hours prior to application, provide written notification of the intended use. Mountain ESD almost exclusively uses non-toxic substances as pesticides on campus. Response: Pacific School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The Healthy Schools Act of 2000 does not require that all schools annually report pesticide use on campus. Pacific School District has adopted an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program that includes record keeping and program review of the program (E.C. 17608 and Food and Agricultural Code Section 13183). Education Code Section 17611 does require that each school site maintain records of all pesticide use at the school site for a period of four years and shall make the Portable Classroom Investigation - 25 information available to the public upon request. Education Code 17612 requires that the school district designee shall annually provide to all staff and parents or guardians of pupils enrolled at a school site, a written notification of the names of all pesticide products expected to be applied at the school facility during the upcoming year. Section 17612(a)(2) requires that if a pesticide product not included in the annual notification is subsequently intended for use at the school site, the school district designee shall, at least 72 hours prior to application, provide written notification of the intended use. Pesticides are limited to abating specific problems (gophers) and parents are notified with each application. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The Healthy Schools Act of 2000 does not require that all schools annually report pesticide use on campus. The act requires that those school districts that voluntarily adopt an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program to include record keeping and program review in their program (E.C. 17608 and Food and Agricultural Code Section 13183). Education Code Section 17611 does require that each school site maintain records of all pesticide use at the school site for a period of four years and shall make the information available to the public upon request. Education Code 17612 requires that the school district designee shall annually provide to all staff and parents or guardians of pupils enrolled at a school site, a written notification of the names of all pesticide products expected to be applied at the school facility during the upcoming year. Section 17612(a)(2) requires that if a pesticide product not included in the annual notification is subsequently intended for use at the school site, the school district designee shall, at least 72 hours prior to application, provide written notification of the intended use. We are a District that uses environmentally friendly products like the EcoExempt products. In cases where a stronger chemical application is needed (termite, flea, gopher treatments and the like), we provide written notification through the administrative staff of the school site to the parents, at least 72 hours prior to application and, install postings at the site stating when, what and why a product is being used. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District PARTIALLY AGREES. (Please refer to Health Schools Act of 2000. CA Ed Code as follows: 17608, 17611, 17612, 17612(a)(2). Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education PARTIALLY AGREES. The Healthy Schools Act of 2000 does not require that all schools annually report pesticide use on campus. The act requires that those school districts that voluntarily adopt an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program to include record keeping and program review in their program (E.C. 17608 and Food and - 26 Portable Classroom Investigation Agricultural Code Section 13183). Education Code Section 17611 does require that each school site maintain records of all pesticide use at the school site for a period of four years and shall make the information available to the public upon request. Education Code 17612 requires that the school district designee shall annually provide to all staff and parents or guardians of pupils enrolled at a school site, a written notification of the names of all pesticide products expected to be applied at the school facility during the upcoming year. Section 17612(a)(2) requires that if a pesticide product not included in the annual notification is subsequently intended for use at the school site, the school district designee shall, at least 72 hours prior to application, provide written notification of the intended use. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. We rarely apply pesticides and only in emergency situations. We adhere to Education Code 17612. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The Healthy Schools Act of 2000 does not require that all schools annually report pesticide use on campus. The act requires that those school districts that voluntarily adopt an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program to include record keeping and program review in their program (E.C. 17608 and Food and Agricultural Code Section 13183). Education Code Section 17611 does require that each school site maintain records of all pesticide use at the school site for a period of four years and shall make the information available to the public upon request. Education Code 17612 requires that the school district designee shall annually provide to all staff and parents or guardians of pupils enrolled at a school site, a written notification of the names of all pesticide products expected to be applied at the school facility during the upcoming year. Section 17612(a)(2) requires that if a pesticide product not included in the annual notification is subsequently intended for use at the school site, the school district designee shall, at least 72 hours prior to application, provide written notification of the intended use. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The Healthy Schools Act of 2000 does not require that all schools annually report pesticide use on campus. The act requires that those school districts that voluntarily adopt an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program to include record keeping and program review in their program (E.C. 17608 and Food and Agricultural Code Section 13183). Education Code Section 17611 does require that each school site maintain records of all pesticide use at the school site for a period of four years and shall make the information available to the public upon request. Education Code 17612 requires that the school district designee shall Portable Classroom Investigation - 27 annually provide to all staff and parents or guardians of pupils enrolled at a school site, a written notification of the names of all pesticide products expected to be applied at the school facility during the upcoming year. Section 17612(a)(2) requires that if a pesticide product not included in the annual notification is subsequently intended for use at the school site, the school district designee shall, at least 72 hours prior to application, provide written notification of the intended use.
F19:
Placement of portable classrooms near parking lots increases the air toxins, due to vehicle exhaust.16 Local schools and districts said that the location of portable classrooms varies even within a district. Traffic is one of many factors in considering a portable’s placement; relatively few are near cars or buses. Response: Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District AGREES. The BDUESD portables are not located near parking lots, cars or buses. The BDUESD is not familiar with portables in other school districts. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. Response: Pacific School District AGREES. Because of the very limited space on Pacific School’s campus, there is no flexibility in portable placement. The preschool building, which was the first installed, has been placed away from parking and traffic. The more recent buildings, however, are adjacent to a road, but there is very little traffic. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. The District places most of these portables away from roads and parking lot areas for safety, noise and air issues. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. Placement of portable classrooms near parking lots increases the air toxins, due to vehicle exhaust. Local schools and districts said that the location of portable classrooms varies even within a district. Traffic is one of many factors in considering a portable's placement; relatively few are near cars or buses. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES. Santa Cruz Sentinel, 17 October 2003. - 28 Portable Classroom Investigation Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District agrees with this finding only as it pertains to SLVUSD portable classrooms. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. At one site (SVMS) four (4) portables are located 24 feet from parking stalls for a small staff parking lot (14 stalls). All other portables are from 35 feet to 50 feet from parking areas. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Schools should place portable classrooms away from streets, parking lots and other traffic areas. Response: Bonny Doon Union School Elementary School District AGREES. The BDUESD portables are placed away from direct traffic areas and parking lots. They have been located in a fenced area above a local road for at least ten years. Response: Live Oak School District AGREES. The recommendation is implemented at Live Oak School District portable classroom sites. Whenever possible, portables, where feasible, are placed away from high traffic areas. Response: Mountain Elementary School District AGREES. - 38 Portable Classroom Investigation The recommendation is implemented at MESD. Portables, where feasible, are placed away from high traffic areas. Response: Pacific School District PARTIALLY AGREES. Pacific School District agrees with this recommendation, but must repeat the response to Finding # 19. Due to very limited space on Pacific School’s campus, there is no flexibility in portable placement. The preschool building, which was the first installed, has been placed away from parking and traffic. The more recent buildings, however, are adjacent to a road, but there is very little traffic. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES. The District tries to place most of the portables away from roads and parking lot areas for safety, noise, traffic issues and air issues. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES. This recommendation is implemented to all degrees possible. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES/ The recommendation is implemented at COE programs portable classroom sites. Portables, where feasible, are placed away from high traffic areas. Each school district will respond to the recommendation in their individual district responses. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES. Portables are currently placed away from high traffic areas. The District’s Measure S construction began in 2003, and by 2006, thirty-eight of the District’s portable classrooms will be removed from its school sites. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District AGREES. The recommendation is implemented by Scotts Valley Unified School District. Portables, where feasible, are placed away from high traffic areas. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. To the extent possible, this recommendation is implemented for district portable classroom sites. Portables, where feasible, are placed away from high traffic areas. However, many factors play a role in the selection of sites for portables, including the configuration of the site and placement of other buildings, the availability of utility hook-ups and appropriate ground conditions. It is necessary to take all of these considerations into account when selecting sites for portables. Portable Classroom Investigation - 39
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
All nine counties reviewed collect TOT and have similar collection policies and results. TOT varied from 8% to 10.5% in the counties surveyed. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County has not conducted a survey of other Counties, and therefore can only confirm that the Transient Occupancy Tax Rate (TOT) for the County of Santa Cruz is currently 10%. A Comparison of Business License and Transient - 3
F2:
Policies on Business Licenses vary considerably from county to county. For example, no Business License is required in Santa Cruz County or Monterey County; a nominal “regulatory” Business License fee of $15 per year is charged in San Luis Obispo, while a sophisticated revenue-raising tax in Marin County has a schedule determined by the type of business and annual sales. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The County has not conducted a survey of policies on Business Licenses.
F3:
Merced County recently initiated a Business License. The supervisors of Merced County determined that a regulatory license would better enable the county to keep track of businesses in its unincorporated area. Through the use of data obtained from the administration of a regulatory business license, the county can offer marketing and promotional information to its businesses. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County has no information on the Merced County business license.
F4:
A county’s decision to implement a TOT or a Business License fee is influenced by the population and business density of unincorporated areas. Many California counties have their dense urban populations located almost entirely within the boundaries of incorporated cities and have no significant urban or commercial areas within their unincorporated area. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES.
F5:
Santa Cruz County has several dense or suburban population centers in its unincorporated areas with a significant number of businesses ranging from retail, services, industrial to home-based. Aptos, Ben Lomond, Boulder Creek, Felton, Live Oak and Soquel are examples of such unincorporated areas of the county. It is not unusual to find similar kinds of businesses where one must pay for a Business License in a city and another, a few blocks away, does not because it is in an unincorporated area. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. - 4 A Comparison of Business License and Transient
F6:
A significant percentage of Santa Cruz County businesses are outside incorporated city boundaries. This information is based largely on membership addresses obtained from business associations established to serve local neighborhoods or countywide businesses. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F7:
Most business associations in the county view any new tax or fee on local businesses with caution. Some businesses are struggling to survive. Data indicates that the new growth of businesses is expected to be largely in the unincorporated areas as opposed to incorporated cities. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The County has not surveyed business associations in the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
If the Board of Supervisors is unsure of local support for the recommended regulatory business license it should consider a ballot initiative to affirm its support.
F8:
Presently Santa Cruz County administrators get much of the business data for planning purposes from the State Employment Development Department. It regularly publishes information about California’s labor market. This includes economic development and planning information, industry and occupational characteristics, trends and wage information. Specific county information is consolidated without separating unincorporated areas. The county issues land use permits whose limits are determined by the particular zoning restrictions. Other sources of data include United Way’s Community Assessment Project, Small Business Administration and private sources such as Dunn and Bradstreet. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. In addition, the County receives information from firms which conduct tracking and audits of sales tax trends and receipts, as well as information collected as part of the County’s CareerWorks programs, and other workforce related programs directed by the County’s Workforce Investment Board. Other information is also collected from additional sources as needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The information obtained about the type, size and growth of businesses in the unincorporated area of the county should be considered when developing the County General Plan. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Business type, size, and growth are addressed in the County’s current General Plan. The Land Use Element of the County’s General Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 1994 includes the goal “to provide adequate facilities to meet the shopping, service, and employment needs of County residents and area visitors in a manner compatible with adjacent residential development, availability of public facilities, protection of natural resources, and maintenance of environmental quality and high standards of urban design”.
F9:
The comparison of nine counties is summarized in approximations in the following table. A Comparison of Business License and Transient - 5 Comparison of Nine Counties TOT and Business Licenses in Unincorporated Areas County # Annual Business # Annual Population TOT of TOT License of Business (total) Bus. Revenues Licenses License Revenues Butte regulatory 20 (208,800) 9.2% 21 $36,800 $49 $980 Marin $15 to revenue 6,300 (248,900) 10% 100 $1,579,000 $4,500 $981,494 $55-$175 regulatory 1200- Merced Number of $250,000 1500 est. (216,400) 10% 6 $629,681 employees est. No general Monterey business NA NA (408,000) 10.5% 75 $13,475,750 license Placer $107 -- $127 Revenue 7,600 (261,500) 8% 378 $8,200,000 $16 renewal $249,000 San Luis Regulatory Obispo 3,800 (252,000) 9% 160 $4,600,000 $15/yearl $57,000 Type of Regulatory Business Santa & Gross Barbara Receipts 850 (405,700) 10% 30 $5,145,000 $25-$1,200+ $80,000 Santa No General Cruz Business NA NA (258,500) 10% 113 $3,889,000 License No General Regulatory License: Tulare Special 63 (375,800) 10% 46 $878,271 Licenses $6,400 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The County has not surveyed the counties. - 6 A Comparison of Business License and Transient
F10:
Marin County uses Business Licenses to cross reference TOT rolls and its sales tax accounts. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County agrees with the finding that the County of Marin has a Business License Tax Ordinance in effect, but cannot comment on how the County of Marin uses the confidential information collected on each business.
F11:
The Midcounty Post reported on August 25, 2003 an example of a business in Capitola that was several years delinquent in paying its TOT obligation. Capitola had previously filed a lien against the property. When Capitola withheld the Business Permit/License it was successful in collecting the delinquent TOT. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County cannot comment on the Transient Occupancy Tax collection procedures utilized by the City of Capitola.
F12:
Existing Santa Cruz County Ordinance No. 4138 and County Code Chapter 4.02 do not allow for collection of business related information and regulation. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The County’s ordinance does not prohibit the County’s collection of business- related information.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should rescind the existing Business License Ordinance No. 4138 and County Code Chapter 4.02. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. This recommendation requires further analysis. The Board of Supervisors may wish to consider this recommendation in conjunction with any corrective review of the County Code which may be conducted at a time in the future.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should implement a regulatory Business License for all businesses in the unincorporated areas of the county. It should be emphasized that this recommendation assumes a nominal fee to cover administrative costs only as opposed to a revenue generating tax. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The County will not implement this recommendation at this time because a regulatory Business License program has not been identified as a desired outcome for the unincorporated area’s businesses. After the adoption of the Business License Tax Ordinance, which has not been implemented, several amendments were added to clarify and improve the administration of the tax, a number of which were based on input from the business community and other interested parties. One of the proposed amendments clarified that the purpose of the chapter is enacted “solely to raise revenue for the general governmental purposes of the County and not for purposes of regulation or of raising revenues for regulatory purposes (underline reflects clarification language in amendment). - 8 A Comparison of Business License and Transient
R3:
Data gathered from a regulatory Business License including types, names and locations of businesses should be made available to all interested individuals and business associations. The Board of Supervisors should encourage private business associations to use this data for their own marketing and promotion activities. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. While the specific recommendation to implement a regulatory Business License program will not be considered at this time, were such data collected, it would be considered public information and would be made available to the public.
F13:
Santa Cruz County cannot put into effect the existing revenue-raising Business License under Chapter 4.02 without voter approval. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F14:
Santa Cruz County has restrictions and requires special permits for selected special businesses in the unincorporated area. The most common businesses that require permits from county departments include ambulance service, card rooms, day care, hazardous materials/waste, kennels, nursing homes and public pools/spas/camps. These permits are generally obtained at initiation of the business one time and are not renewed annually.
F15:
Santa Cruz County issues use authorizations or permits in accordance with regulation of a zone district. Approval is required for certain uses including agriculture, residential, industrial and commercial. Generally the Planning A Comparison of Business License and Transient - 7 Department issues approval permits as part of applications to construct buildings such as a barn, or residence or commercial building. Permits are issued once without requiring annual renewal. Fees are charged on an hourly basis if the site is previously not permitted. Otherwise user approvals for existing master occupancy permit locations or new businesses replacing an existing similar business may be renewed over the counter for a nominal fee and are required once in the life of the business.
F16:
Several communities throughout the U.S. require the completion of a recycling plan as a requirement of the annual Business License.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
A Summary of the Access to Medical Care Reports: Sutter, Dominican and Watsonville hospitals had to submit yearly reports to be in compliance with the Access to Medical Care Agreement. A summary of these reports follows in this section. The Grand Jury found most of the computational errors to be minor in the reports. However, some of these errors resulted in a deficit rather than an excess.8 The corrected figures were used in the charts. A more detailed listing of the financial data is in the Appendix. Sutter Hospital Sutter Hospital 1996 to 2002 Performance Summary Total Agreed Upon Uncompensated Care 1996 - 2002 $5,052,356 Actual Expenditures to Meet Agreement 1996 - 2002 $3,701,931 Percentage Attained 1996 - 2002 73.27% Fiscal Year 2002 2001 2S000u#t#t#er H1o99s8pi1t9a97l 1996 2002 to 1996 Gross $39,850,799 ##### ##### ### ######### ###### #### ########## Net $13,966,391 ##### ##### ### $9,017,921 ###### #### $73,811,050 Agreed $977,647 ##### ##### ### $631,254 ###### #### $5,052,356 $1,000,000 Actual $54,208 ##### ##### ### $75,031 ###### #### $45A4g,8r5e1ed Upon A$c8tu0al0 ,000 $842,506 ##### ##### ### $478,579 ###### $0 $3,27 U 5 n ,3 c 4 o 3 mpensated Care (7% Uncompens $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,460 ###### (Note 1) $0 Except 1996 @ 5.5%) Actual $896,714 ##### ##### ### $603,070 ###### #### $4,317,609 $600,000 Cost to 45.96% ##### ##### ### 53.57% 69.00% #### N/A C$o4st0 o0f ,000 $412,130 ##### ##### ### $323,065 ###### #### $2,29A4c,7t5u0al Expenditures to Contribution $469,528 ##### ##### ### (Note 2) (Note (Note $1,40M7,e1e8t1 Agreement (Cost of A$c2tu0al0 ,000 $881,658 ##### ##### ### $323,065 ###### #### $3,70P1r,o93vi1ding Care + Commitmen ($95,990) ##### ##### ### ($308,190) ###### #### ($1,35C0,o42n5tr)ibutions) $0 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 8 See the Appendix. - 8 Hospitals and Charity Care Sutter Hospital Yearly Performance 2002 through 1999 Fiscal Year (Ending Dec 31) 2002 2001 2000 1999 Gross Revenue $39,850,799 $31,564,372 $31,818,412 $30,779,800 Net Operating Expense $13,966,391 $12,070,278 $11,451,133 $10,255,111 Agreed Upon Uncompensated Care (7% Except 1996 @ 5.5%) $977,647 $844,919 $801,579 $717,858 Actual Uncompensated Charity $54,208 $66,996 $122,582 $75,195 Actual Uncompensated Bad Debt $842,506 $998,947 $240,585 $308,146 Uncompensated Care Write-Off (No Clarification) $0 $0 $0 $0 Actual Uncompensated Total (Bad Debt + Charity+ Other Uncompensated) $896,714 $1,065,943 $363,167 $383,341 Cost to Charges Ratio 45.96% 49.29% 46.17% 44.12% Cost of Providing Care (Cost Ratio X Actual Uncompensated Total) $412,130 $525,403 $167,674 $169,130 Contributions to Exempt Organizations and Community $469,528 $415,600 $358,754 $163,299 Actual Expenditures to Meet Agreement (Cost of Providing Care + Contributions) $881,658 $941,003 $526,428 $332,429 Commitment Excess (Deficit) ($95,990) $96,084 ($275,151) ($385,429) Sutter Hospital Yearly Performance 1998 through 1996 & Total Fiscal Year (Ending Dec 31) 1998 1997 1996 2002 to 1996 Totals Gross Revenue $22,705,186 $18,005,934 $11,165,252 $185,889,755 Net Operating Expense $9,017,921 $9,422,345 $7,627,871 $73,811,050 Agreed Upon Uncompensated Care (7% Except 1996 @ 5.5%) $631,254 $659,564 $419,533 $5,052,356 Actual Uncompensated Charity $75,031 $38,314 $22,525 $454,851 Actual Uncompensated Bad Debt $478,579 $406,580 $0 $3,275,343 Uncompensated Care Write-Off (No Clarification) $49,460 $537,955 (Note 1) $0 $587,415 Actual Uncompensated Total (Bad Debt + Charity+ Other Uncompensated) $603,070 $982,849 $22,525 $4,317,609 Cost to Charges Ratio 53.57% 69.00% 85.16% N/A Cost of Providing Care (Cost Ratio X Actual Uncompensated Total) $323,065 $678,166 $19,182 $2,294,750 Contributions to Exempt Organizations and Community (Note 2) $0 (Note 2) $0 (Note 2) $0 $1,407,181 Actual Expenditures to Meet Agreement (Cost of Providing Care + Contributions) $323,065 $678,166 $19,182 $3,701,931 Commitment Excess (Deficit) ($308,190) $18,602 ($400,351) -$1,350,425 Note 1 - This was reported as $475,211 but "uncompensated care" is not allowed under the 5.5% alternative. Note 2 - This was reported as $631,704 in 1996, $613,507 in 1997, and $544,738 in 1998 but "Unpaid Costs of Government Programs" are not allowed. Hospitals and Charity Care - 9 Dominican Hospital Dominican Hospital 1996 to 2002 Performance Summary Total Agreed Upon Uncompensated Care 1996 - 2002 $24,179,454 Actual Expenditures to Meet Agreement 1996 - 2002 $29,408,253 Percentage Attained 1996 - 2002 121.62% Fisc 2002 ## ## ## 1998 1997 1996 2002 to Dominican Hospital Gros $456,841,306 ## ## ## $250,938,722 ####### ######### ####### Net $64,239,883 ## ## ## $42,522,518 ####### ######### ####### Agre $4,496,792 ## ## ## $2,976,576 ####### $2,900,600 ####### $d8,000,000 Actu $4,804,515 ## ## ## $1,891,319 ####### $1,631,459 ###A#g##re#ed Upon Actu $9,268,252 ## ## ## $2,804,999 ####### $4,539,076 ###U##n#c#ompensated Care $6,000,000 Actu $14,072,767 ## ## ## $4,696,318 ####### $6,170,535 ###(#7#%##) Cost 29.62% ## ## ## 42.22% 43.88% 43.80% N/A $Co4s,t0 00,000 $4,168,354 ## ## ## $1,982,785 ####### $2,702,694 ####### Cont $2,055,000 ## ## ## $1,006,000 ####### $1,539,000 ###A#c##tu#al Expenditures to $Ac2tu,000,000 $6,223,354 ## ## ## $2,988,785 ####### $4,241,694 ###M##e#e#t Agreement (Cost Com $1,726,562 ## ## ## $12,209 ####### $696,977 ###o#f# P##roviding Care + $0 Contributions) 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 - 10 Hospitals and Charity Care Dominican Hospital Yearly Performance 2002 through 1999 Fiscal Year (Ending June 30) 2002 2001 2000 1999 Gross Revenue $456,841,306 $330,472,517 $289,437,497 $272,662,515 Net Operating Expense $64,239,883 $46,725,331 $55,309,811 $51,081,651 Agreed Upon Uncompensated Care (7%) $4,496,792 $3,270,773 $3,871,687 $3,575,716 Actual Uncompensated Charity $4,804,515 $2,523,092 $2,611,204 $2,374,819 Actual Uncompensated Bad Debt $9,268,252 $7,212,450 $4,327,984 $3,739,328 Actual Uncompensated Total (Bad Debt + Charity) $14,072,767 $9,735,542 $6,939,188 $6,114,147 Cost to Charges Ratio 29.62% 36.46% 40.41% 40.44% Cost of Providing Care (Cost Ratio X Actual Uncompensated Total) $4,168,354 $3,549,579 $2,804,126 $2,472,561 Contributions to Exempt Organizations and Community $2,055,000 $415,600 $1,641,000 $1,357,000 Actual Expenditures to Meet Agreement (Cost of Providing Care + Contributions) $6,223,354 $3,965,179 $4,445,126 $3,829,561 Commitment Excess (Deficit) $1,726,562 $694,405 $573,439 $253,845 Dominican Hospital Yearly Performance 1998 through 1996 & Total Fiscal Year (Ending June 30) 2002 to 1996 1998 1997 1996 Totals Gross Revenue $250,938,722 $244,016,884 $235,816,649 $2,080,186,090 Net Operating Expense $42,522,518 $44,104,443 $41,437,136 $345,420,773 Agreed Upon Uncompensated Care (7%) $2,976,576 $3,087,311 $2,900,600 $24,179,454 Actual Uncompensated Charity $1,891,319 $3,046,679 $1,631,459 $18,883,087 Actual Uncompensated Bad Debt $2,804,999 $2,955,040 $4,539,076 $34,847,129 Actual Uncompensated Total (Bad Debt + Charity) $4,696,318 $6,001,719 $6,170,535 $53,730,216 Cost to Charges Ratio 42.22% 43.88% 43.80% N/A Cost of Providing Care (Cost Ratio X Actual Uncompensated Total) $1,982,785 $2,633,554 $2,702,694 $20,313,653 Contributions to Exempt Organizations and Community $1,006,000 $1,081,000 $1,539,000 $9,094,600 Actual Expenditures to Meet Agreement (Cost of Providing Care + Contributions) $2,988,785 $3,714,554 $4,241,694 $29,408,253 Commitment Excess (Deficit) $12,209 $627,243 $696,977 $4,584,681 Hospitals and Charity Care - 11 Watsonville Hospital Watsonville Hospital 1996 to 2002 Performance Summary Total Agreed Upon Uncompensated Care 1996 - 2002 $7,089,917 Actual Expenditures to Meet Agreement 1996 - 2002 $7,527,237 Percentage Attained 1996 - 2002 106.17% Watsonville Community Hospital 2002 to 1996 Fiscal 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 ### Totals Year $2,50G0r,o0s0s0 $0 ##### ##### ####### $0 ####### ### $802,797,026 Net $0 ##### ##### ####### $0 ####### ### $101,284,522 Agreed Upon $2,00A0g,0re0e0 $0 ##### ##### ####### $0 ####### ### $7,089,917 Actual $0 ##### ##### $653,169 $0 $753,698 ### $5,3U6n9c,9o7m7pensated Care Actual $0 ##### ##### ####### $0 ####### ### $14,6(747%,1)49 $1,500,000 Actual $0 ##### ##### ####### $0 ####### ### $20,017,126 $1,00 C 0 o ,0 st 0 0 0.00% ##### ##### 41.16% 0.00% 49.83% ### Actual Expenditures to Cost $0 ##### ##### ####### $0 ####### ### $7,5M27e,e2t3 7Agreement (Cost of $50C0o,0nt0ri0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Providing Care + Actual $0 ##### ##### ####### $0 ####### ### $7,5C2o7n,2t3ri7butions) Com$0 $0 ##### ##### ####### $0 ####### ### $437,321 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 - 12 Hospitals and Charity Care Watsonville Hospital Yearly Performance 2002 through 1999 Fiscal Year (Ending Dec 31) 2002 2001 2000 1999 Gross Revenue $0 $254,350,140 $195,929,361 $141,120,162 Net Operating Expense $0 $25,488,782 $21,596,081 $20,361,845 Agreed Upon Uncompensated Care (7%) $0 $1,784,215 $1,511,726 $1,425,329 Actual Uncompensated Charity $0 $1,634,719 $1,057,600 $653,169 Actual Uncompensated Bad Debt $0 $4,967,008 $3,519,779 $3,165,288 Actual Uncompensated Total (Bad Debt + Charity) $0 $6,601,727 $4,577,379 $3,818,457 Cost to Charges Ratio 0.00% 29.27% 33.26% 41.16% Cost of Providing Care (Cost Ratio X Actual Uncompensated Total) $0 $1,932,325 $1,522,436 $1,571,677 Contributions to Exempt Organizations and Community $0 $0 $0 $0 Actual Expenditures to Meet Agreement (Cost of Providing Care + Contributions) $0 $1,932,325 $1,522,436 $1,571,677 Commitment Excess (Deficit) $0 $148,111 $10,711 $146,348 Watsonville Hospital Yearly Performance 1998 through 1996 & Total Fiscal Year (Ending Dec 31) 1998 1997 1996 2002 to 1996 Totals Gross Revenue $0 $108,060,744 $103,336,619 $802,797,026 Net Operating Expense $0 $17,046,592 $16,791,222 $101,284,522 Agreed Upon Uncompensated Care (7%) $0 $1,193,261 $1,175,386 $7,089,917 Actual Uncompensated Charity $0 $753,698 $1,270,791 $5,369,977 Actual Uncompensated Bad Debt $0 $2,016,985 $978,089 $14,647,149 Actual Uncompensated Total (Bad Debt + Charity) $0 $2,770,683 $2,248,880 $20,017,126 Cost to Charges Ratio 0.00% 49.83% 49.81% N/A Cost of Providing Care (Cost Ratio X Actual Uncompensated Total) $0 $1,380,631 $1,120,167 $7,527,237 Contributions to Exempt Organizations and Community $0 $0 $0 $0 Actual Expenditures to Meet Agreement (Cost of Providing Care + Contributions) $0 $1,380,631 $1,120,167 $7,527,237 Commitment Excess (Deficit) $0 $187,370 ($55,218) $437,321 Hospitals and Charity Care - 13 Response: Santa County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The charts presented by the Grand Jury have been moved to Attachment A of this response. Many of the “computational errors” the Grand Jury noted were essentially rounding errors. Depending on the number of decimal places used in recalculating the charity care reports, the end results will vary. The Grand Jury used two decimal places to recalculate reports while the hospitals used five decimal places (or more) when they prepared the reports. When multiplying numbers in the millions of dollars by percentages, rounding differences can total several hundred dollars or more. The Grand Jury’s charts apparently do not include Sutter contributions for uncompensated care in 1997 and 1998 or the unpaid costs of government programs for applicable years (the difference between the actual cost of providing care and the reimbursement from MediCal, Medicare, and Medicruz). These costs were approved and certified by the independent auditors overseeing hospital reports on compliance and accepted by the prior Health Director through 2000. Watsonville Hospital’s initial report in 1996 failed to place brackets around the final computation indicating that the hospital was in surplus rather than deficit. The auditor’s letter accompanying the reports attested to the accuracy of the computations. HSA should have required the hospital to correct the error. Because these agreements were unique, some of the categories of expenditures assisting the uninsured provided by the hospitals were not addressed in the original agreement or forms. These types of expenditures were put in various categories or new lines were added to the reports. HSA has worked with and will continue to work with the hospitals on these issues for possible revision in updated agreements. - 14 Hospitals and Charity Care
F2:
Uncompensated Care Incurred by the Hospitals in Santa Cruz County Total Uncompensated Countywide Hospital Bad Debt Dollars 2002 - 1996 Domin$ic3an,27W5a,t3so4n3ville Sutter Actual $18,883,087 $5,369,977 $454,851 Actual $34,847,129 $14,647,149 $3,275,343 $14,647,149 Dominican Watsonville Sutter $34,847,129 Total Uncompensated Countywide Hospital Charity Dollars 2002 - 1996 $454,851 $5,369,977 Dominican Watsonville Sutter $18,883,087 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The Grand Jury reports above are a summary of their revised reports deducting uncompensated care and unpaid costs of government programs and with their slightly different calculation basis. The most serious error in the Grand Jury charts, however, is the implication that all the hospitals are the same and should Hospitals and Charity Care - 15 have equal contributions when in fact they are very different in numbers of beds and gross budgets. In addition, the Grand Jury’s charts include the following errors: • The charts above do not adjust for the fact that Watsonville had submitted only 5 years of data instead of 7. This a significant issue when displaying a chart that says 1996-2002. Adjustments for relative size are critical to fairly compare contributions, and the Grand Jury’s chart misrepresents the relative contribution of each institution. • The Grand Jury’s charts did not include the uncompensated care and unpaid government program costs from Sutter 1996-2000 and thus do not reflect the independent auditors’ reports certified and submitted to the County. • Cost to chart ratios are significant in determining actual costs, and all direct services, billed or not, should have cost to chart ratios applied to them. Cost to chart ratios do not appear to have been considered in the charts or calculations of the Grand Jury. The following chart presents the cost to charge ratios of the three hospitals. The higher the percentage, the closer the charges are to actual costs of service delivery. Cost to Charge Ratios - Santa Cruz County 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 DHSC SMSC WCH - 16 Hospitals and Charity Care • To accurately reflect the relative contribution of each hospital, it is necessary to take into account their different sizes and budgets, which the Grand Jury did not do. • Watsonville reports have not been audited since the new administration purchased the hospital. • The Grand Jury charts do not include the independent auditors certified expenditures for Sutter as discussed above, but do include Dominican’s certified expenditures including categories called “other contributions to the poor and broader community”. In summary, there are significant problems with the summary charts of the Grand Jury which are continued in findings 3 and 4. Below are the certified expenditures for the hospitals as submitted by the independent auditors. Final Auditor Community Certified Hospital FY END Method Required Provided Benefit Ex/(Def) DSCH 6/95 CC&BD $2,425,772 $3,122,749 N/A $696.977 6/96 CC&BD $2,900,600 $2,702,896 $1,539,000 $1,341,296 6/97 CC&BD $3,087,311 $2,633,802 $1,081,000 $627,491 6/98 CC&BD $2,976,576 $1,982,899 $1,133,000 $139,323 6/99 CC&BD $3,575,716 $2,472,713 $1,357,000 $253,997 6/00 CC&BD $3,871,687 $2,803,860 $1,641,000 $573,173 6/01 CC&BD $3,270,773 $3,549,867 N/A $279,904 6/02 CC&BD $4,496,792 $4,168,392 $2,055,000 $1,726,600 SMSC* 12/96 CC $419,534 $1,051,328 N/A $631,704 12/97 CC&BD $659,564 $1,291,673 N/A $632,109 12/98 CC&BD $631,254 $867,803 N/A $236,548 12/99 CC&BD $717,858 $169,148 $740,856 $192,246 12/00 CC&BD $801,579 $167,660 $661,700 $27,780 12/01 CC&BD $844,919 $525,385 $415,600 $96,066 12/02 CC&BD $977,647 $412,132 $469,528 ($95,987)** WCH 6/95 CC&BD $1,070,287 $1,347,785 N/A $277,498 6/96 CC&BD $1,175,386 $1,120,101 N/A See 6/97 6/97 CC&BD $1,193,261 $1,380,548 2 YR. AVG. $132,002 6/98*** N/A 12/99 CC&BD $1,425,329 $1,571,609 N/A $146,280 12/00 CC&BD $1,511,726 $1,522,620 N/A $10,894 12/01 CC&BD $1,784,215 $1,932,221 N/A $148,006 12/02 CC&BD $1,888,754 $1,942,092 N/A $53,338 CC&BD = Charity care and bad debt option selected *The methodology and interpretations used by Sutter Maternity and Surgery Center (SMSC) in the preparation of their reports submitted through December 2000 was Hospitals and Charity Care - 17 questioned in 2001. The methodology was settled and the outcome approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 18, 2001. **SMSC brought forward the 12/01 excess contribution to the 12/02 period to offset the remaining deficit after community benefit activities were credited. ***Watsonville Community Hospital changed ownership in September 1998. The new ownership changed the hospital’s fiscal year to end on December 31. Under the hospital’s new contract with the county, the charity care reporting obligation began with the fiscal year ending 12/99. Because of the change in ownership, no report was available for the fiscal year ending June 1998. The preceding table summarizes the reports submitted by the three local contract hospitals since the inception of their obligations to provide specified levels of care, bad debt, and community benefit activities. All hospitals have reported being in compliance with their obligations although both Dominican Hospital and Sutter Maternity and Surgery have had to rely on community benefits activities as well as charity care and bad debt. As can be seen from the above data, with the exception of Dominican Hospital in the 6/01 reporting period, the hospitals have demonstrated increasing inability to meet their obligations through the provision of charity care and bad debt alone. In fact, satisfying the obligation by using the option to provide 5.5% of net operating costs in charity care has never been effectively used by any of the hospitals.
F3:
In 1996 Sutter Hospital selected the 5.5% option, which allowed only charity care to be deducted under the terms of the AMCA. It reported exceeding the agreed- upon charity care requirement by $631,704. However, it achieved this excess by means of two violations of the terms of the AMCA. First, Sutter Hospital wrote off $613,507 for the unpaid costs of government programs (Medicare, Medi-Cal, Medi-Cruz), which was not allowed. Second, it deducted $475,211 for “uncompensated care write-offs,” which was not allowed under the 5.5% option. If these deductions were factored out, the final calculation resulted in a non- compliance deficit of ($400,353). Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The independent auditor’s certified report for 1996 accepted by the Health Administrator included uncompensated care and unpaid costs of government programs. Later clarification by Sutter indicated that the uncompensated care services were bad debt. The Health Administrator also accepted $1,786,000 in unbilled services for Dominican based on the certified auditor report. It is unclear whether these charges were adjusted based on the cost to charge ratio and whether these would be more accurately characterized as charity care, bad debt or - 18 Hospitals and Charity Care community benefit. Given the unique nature of these agreements, some of the hospital activities provided by all three hospitals to the community did not fit neatly into the format and categories in the agreement. HSA worked with the hospitals to understand their differing expenses related to community activities to find the best fit within the agreement. HSA acknowledges there were several issues in dispute until the Board approved the revised services plan in 2001. The most significant issue concerned counting the unpaid cost of government programs. In 2001, the County Health Department under new leadership began working with the new Sutter administrator to increase direct services and access to services for the uninsured. The systems are now in place and are reviewed quarterly. Since the new services were approved by the Board in 2001, unpaid costs for government payors was not included in any reports. In addition, each specific item under community benefit is reviewed by HSA.
F4:
In 1997 and 1998 Sutter Hospital chose the 7% AMCA option, which allowed deductions of both charity and bad debt. The hospital deducted amounts for charity and bad debt, but again deducted.“uncompensated care write-offs” with no clarification. In 1997 and 1998 these unexplained “uncompensated care write-offs” amounted to $537,955 and $49,460 respectively. In 1997 and 1998, Sutter Hospital again did not adhere to the terms of the AMCA by deducting the unpaid costs of government programs. In 1997 and 1998 these deductions totaled $613,507 and $867,738 respectively. By deducting the unexplained “uncompensated care write- offs” and the unpaid costs of government programs, the hospital reported exceeding the agreed-upon uncompensated care requirement in 1997 by $632,109 and in 1998 by $659,564. When the unpaid costs of government programs are factored out for 1997, it exceeded the requirement by a much smaller amount of $18,603. Using the same type of deductions for 1998, rather than exceeding the AMCA requirement, Sutter Hospital was non-compliant with a deficit of ($308,189). Additionally, when the unexplained “uncompensated write-offs” are factored out for 1997 and 1998, Sutter Hospital was non-compliant with deficits of ($519,352) and ($357,649) respectively. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. With the 7% methodology, the issues remain essentially the same as the previous response to item 3. Uncompensated care and unpaid costs of government programs were the hospital costs approved by the independent auditor and certified to HSA as appropriate and which were consistent with industry standards for health care financial reporting in California. All the hospitals used respected independent auditing firms to review their compliance and certify expenditures to the Health Services Agency Administrator, including Seghetti & Waxler, Ernst & Young LLP, Arthur Anderson and Deloitte & Touche LLP. All of these firms have extensive Hospitals and Charity Care - 19 health finance expertise. Also, it should be mentioned that all the auditing firms increased both costs and level of detailed analysis and consultation with the County related to contract interpretation after the Arthur Anderson accounting scandal related to ENRON. These firms audit hospital cost reports for Medicare and other requirements and are quite familiar with health finance requirements.
F5:
In 2001 the HSA and Sutter Hospital met to discuss the hospital’s non-compliance with the AMCA. On October 15, 2001, the hospital wrote a letter to the HSA to change the terms of the original agreement. The letter stated, “If accepted this letter would settle all differences between the County and the Hospital for all years prior to 2001, and would provide an agreed-upon interpretation” between them over certain provisions of the Agreement for 2001 and all years thereafter. “This letter would not constitute an amendment of the Agreement in any way.” The Sutter Hospital and Santa Cruz Medical Clinic (SCMC) physicians offered the following services: A. High-risk pregnancy services worth $4,000 x 17 patients, even if 17 patients were not treated. SCMC pediatricians will provide post-natal care until 18 years of age, but if not reimbursed, would refer these children back to the county clinic. B. The county will approve Sutter Hospital’s requests for prior approval of specific community benefit activities. C. The community clinics in North County could sign up patients for education programs and patient education supplies for credit under charity. D. The hospital will provide up to $10,000 a year of laboratory services for hepatitis C. E. The county and the hospital will determine what kind of physician specialists, “including but not limited to urologists and orthopedists” are needed and the hospital’s relocation program will be credited to community benefit for a maximum of $100,000 plus moving costs for each 4 year recruiting agreement. These physicians will agree to see Medi-Cal and Medi-Cruz patients. F. The hospital will donate at least $25,000 to the Youth Resource Bank on a restricted use basis to pay insurance premiums for Healthy Families eligible clients. G. Medi-Cruz patients will obtain $50,000 in free care at the Hospital. The hospital will receive a credit for uncompensated care of 200% of what - 20 Hospitals and Charity Care Medi-Cruz would have paid for these services. SCMC physicians will see pre-screened Medi-Cruz patients for non-hospital services as an obligation under the Access to Medical Care Agreement. H. The county will not hold the hospital liable for its deficits in earlier AMCA reports. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The new services and contributions to indigent care and the safety net programs were designed to provide a clear mechanisms for compliance without relying on an emergency department for patient referrals. The County worked extensively with the new CEO of Sutter to identify the best ways for the hospital to meet the needs of the safety net clinics, the uninsured, and also provide required levels of services and expenditures under the agreement. The list of services was developed collaboratively. Hospital services are provided to uninsured patients who did not meet MediCruz qualifications or needed a service not covered by MediCruz. MediCruz is the County program for individuals who are uninsured and is limited in coverage to individuals up to 100% of federal poverty with some share of cost clients up to 200%. Sutter covers individuals up to 300% with no cost and up to 400% with a share of cost. The community benefit services proposed by SCMC leadership were needed by the County and Safety Net Clinics for indigent patients. This proposal was not a contract amendment, but was an addendum to improve compliance to the original goals of the agreement. The teamwork with the Sutter and SCMC leadership in proposing this addendum to the agreement was a significant turning point in developing a partnership to serve the uninsured patients of the County and the Safety Net clinics. One of the most significant features is access to specialists who dedicate part of their practice to safety net patients for their first four years in the community. This has been a very valuable asset for access to needed specialist talent to complement the primary care of the safety net clinics. The County believes that the Grand Jury has not recognized the significance of this improved set of services and believes that litigation would be a costly and uncertain course of action. Instead, services have been improved and partnerships strengthened. Not withstanding the disappointment with the initial interpretation related to the unpaid costs of government programs, the current system for insuring the agreement is met has exceeded County expectations and met the initial goals for the agreement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should not allow changes to terms of the Access to Medical Care Agreement, unless the changes directly benefit the indigent. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The public health mission of the County is to improve the health of the whole community including the special needs of the indigent. The County can clarify provisions of the agreement which meet the intent to improve services not only to the indigent, but to the health of the community as a whole.
F6:
Eight days later, the HSA and the Board of Supervisors accepted the terms of the letter. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Hospitals and Charity Care - 21 In addition, other hospitals were notified that these types of services would be accepted as part of the community benefit component of the agreement. In addition, the County clarified that it would not count duplicative services or services not of value to overall community health.
F7:
In 2001 as a condition of accepting Sutter Hospital’s lack of adherence to the terms of the AMCA, the Board of Supervisors stipulated that indigent patient healthcare services should be given priority. The HSA required Sutter Hospital to submit a list of community benefits for approval. Sutter Hospital submitted lists of activities to gain approval with the following non-healthcare activities: A. Collected trash for Adopt a Highway: $10,494. B. Cleaning up the San Lorenzo River: $312. C. Donated surgical supplies/equipment to a local veterinary hospital: $232. D. Provided a meeting room for Kol Tefillah support group: $8,000. The HSA did not approve the above items because they were “not related to healthcare for low-income, uninsured or community health at large.” Examples of what the HSA approved include the following: A. Cash donation to the Santa Cruz County Women’s Commission: $35. B. Donated used linen to local crisis support and shelters: $1,087. C. Collected toys for Loaves and Fishes Toy Drive: $810. D. Encouraged staff to donate to United Way Campaign: $243 E. United Way Golf Tourney: $200. F. Welfare to Work Program: $2,187. The HSA approved the above activities, despite the fact they were “not related to healthcare for low-income, uninsured or community health at large.” In 2001 the HSA approved Sutter Hospital’s provision of a meeting space for a variety of groups, which also were not related to healthcare. A. Seniors Commission: $2,150. B. Mothers of Twins Club: $2,500. C. Stepfamily Association/Foster Parents: $2,900. In 2002, Sutter Hospital included meeting spaces for: A. “Temple Beth El” for study and meditation: $4,800. B. California Association for Marriage and Family therapists: $4,050. - 22 Hospitals and Charity Care In 2003 Sutter Hospital submitted items, which also had no relationship to healthcare, but the HSA approved them. Examples included the following: A. Participated in fundraising efforts of United Way: $1,307. B. Provided meeting space for senior groups: $300. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The County has clarified the basis for approval and submission of activities. When Sutter began submitting activities to the County for Access to Care consideration, they included all the activities approved as allowable under community benefit reporting by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). The State does not require community benefit activities to be healthcare only, and all the hospitals count and track these types of items for OSHPD reporting. As the quarterly process of review has progressed, Sutter’s reports for the County agreement eliminated those items from the County reports. The County approved United Way donations because United Way is doing a significant community assessment project which includes health care. It is a large and expensive project which creates an annual community report card on health and other issues. This activity has led to many positive improvements in health and should be supported. The County approved support activities and donations for foster parents due to the number of disabled and traumatized children they serve that are of great concern to the HSA and Social Services. Without support, these children often end up in expensive hospitals and group homes for mental health issues. The Women’s Commission has been focusing on mental health issues for women and therefore the $35 donation was approved. Crisis support for women and victims of domestic violence is a mental health service and therefore this donation was approved. Loaves and Fishes provides needed food and nutrition support for the poor which directly relates to general health and therefore the $810 was approved. Welfare to Work programs are core County programs assisting low income parents in mental health, substance abuse, and other health needs as well as helping with jobs and therefore this donation was approved. Hospitals and Charity Care - 23 Twins support group was approved due to needs of this population particularly for post delivery depression and stress. Senior programs were also approved because of the many needs of frail and at risk seniors of concern to the County Health Department and their desire to strengthen the safety net for this group. Sutter presents an excellent annual senior health fair which provides exams and consultation on numerous health issues and also provides visiting nursing services through their visiting nurse program. County records indicate that the request for space used by Temple Beth El was denied. If this use was approved by the County, it was done so in error.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should look at what is being approved by the HSA to guarantee that indigent patient care needs are fulfilled first. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. HSA utilizes the activities approved by the Board in managing the contract. The Board reviews and approves periodic reports on Access to Care services from HSA. The Board can direct HSA to consider improvements to the original agreement. Improvements to the contract could be made to address omissions in the original - 30 Hospitals and Charity Care agreement in the area of late reports, lack of audited reports, and a process for resolving conflicts on interpretation.
F8:
Despite the free testing of hepatitis C patients offered by Sutter Hospital and the free medication available,9 the HSA refuses to treat Hepatitis C patients. The Grand Jury heard testimony from the HSA that the “difficulty is the high cost of the work up, the number of appointments, the lab tests are very, very expensive.” Furthermore, the people seen in the clinic with the diagnosis of hepatitis C “are current substance abusers.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The County routinely provided Hepatitis C treatment to patients with MediCal and other coverage. The inclusion of Hepatitis C treatment to MediCruz patients required significant evaluation by the department. The County HSA has continued to work with community groups to develop two programs for individuals with Hepatitis C. One program for community clinic patients and uncomplicated patients identified by the County is a special lab and treatment access program through Dr. William Morris at the Hepatitis C Center. This is now in place and the County is providing free lab services to those patients. In addition, the County has initiated a pilot program through MediCruz for 20 patients with complex illnesses and Hepatitis C.
F9:
Despite the specific mention of recruitment of an orthopedist in Sutter Hospital’s letter, nothing has been done. The county clinic patients have to travel to Santa Clara County to receive orthopedic care because the Santa Cruz Medical Clinic orthopedists refuse to see them. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency Physicians Association reported the lack of treatment for hepatitis C patients to the Board of Supervisors on November 18, 2003. It also reported that free medication was available. - 24 Hospitals and Charity Care Sutter has been working with the County to expand local orthopedic capacity by trying to recruit new specialists in this field of medicine. While many Sutter recruitments of specialists desired by the County have been successful, this has not. Competition among communities for orthopedic surgeons is very difficult, in part since orthopedists are increasingly sub-specializing, e.g., hand, shoulder, hip, knee, thereby requiring a larger population base to sustain their practices. Consultation with local hospitals and other counties has shown this to be a highly competitive specialist market. Most orthopedic specialists in Santa Cruz County have a full caseload of patients, and most of them - not just those associated with Santa Cruz Medical Clinic - have limited their acceptance of new patients. All of those with hospital privileges are obligated to and do care for uninsured patients as part of the hospital emergency on-call system. The difficulty with hospital access is primarily with elective orthopedic surgical services and, in recent months, an increasing volume of outpatients with urgent problems. The County Clinics have expanded their outpatient orthopedic services from a half-day a week three years ago to two full days a week at present, and the demand continues to increase. Currently the County has two part-time orthopedic specialists doing outpatient procedures. For hospital procedures, the County's contract orthopedists are able to refer patients to Santa Clara Valley Medical Center for elective surgery. However, even that tertiary care center with a full-scope orthopedic residency training program is nearing capacity. There are long waits for access for elective procedures. Because of the many new procedures and the aging population coupled with a local shortage of orthopedists, this specialty is overwhelmed with referrals. While the County will continue to work with Sutter and other health leaders to expand access in this area of medicine, the most helpful thing would be to resolve the locality 99 Medicare issue because it impacts so many of the patients referred to orthopedics. Physicians completing their residency training in orthopedics and other specialties carefully consider these rates when deciding where to locate their practices. Notwithstanding a Rand Corporation report in 1998 of an impending national surplus of orthopedists, the situation is quite different in smaller communities like ours with a rural reimbursement formula. Santa Cruz County’s current Medicare Geographic Adjustment Factor lags behind Santa Clara County’s reimbursement levels by 18%. This will increase to 25% in 2005. Santa Cruz County cannot effectively compete with our neighboring counties for specialists in high demand.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Santa Cruz Medical Clinic physicians should see the county clinic patients who need specialty care. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. As stated previously, the physicians are not party to this agreement, but the Sutter hospital and leadership have worked on incentives for access to most specialty areas through the Santa Cruz Medical Clinic Physicians. Orthopedic access is currently overwhelmed and the County and Sutter have been working together to try to address this through recruiting new physicians in this area of medicine with dedicated hours for access to care patients.
F10:
As anticipated, Sutter Hospital’s amount of bad debt and charity are much smaller than Dominican or Watsonville Hospitals’ because of Sutter Hospital’s lack of an emergency room. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Hospitals and Charity Care - 25 Sutter is a much smaller hospital with only 30 licensed beds and no emergency department so it would be anticipated that it would have less bad debt and charity care. It is less than one-third (28%) the size of Watsonville hospital (106 licensed beds). Sutter also cannot take acute and unstable patients, which limits the number of patients who can be admitted.
F11:
The AMCA required an auditor’s report to accompany all the hospitals’ reports to the HSA. The reports given to the Grand Jury by the HSA had only two auditor’s reports, which were submitted by Dominican Hospital in 1995 and 1996. However, the auditors’ letters, which accompanied Sutter Hospital’s reports, allowed the unpaid cost of government costs to be deducted. They also stated that the reports were not audited. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. All of Sutter's and Dominican’s reports have been audited by reputable audit firms. Watsonville has had problems producing independent audits since the new owners assumed responsibility for the hospital. Since the Arthur Anderson scandal related to ENRON, all of the auditors have increased rates to the hospitals and have been consulting with the County on details of contract compliance. While the new attention to detail and consultation has been good, another solution for all three hospitals would be to have the County Auditor Controller conduct the audits. They would be done consistently and at reasonable rates. This will be discussed with the hospitals as an option for compliance in future years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The HSA should ensure that the required Auditor’s Reports be submitted by all hospitals and carefully reviewed. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F12:
Although Dominican Hospital also reported AMCA deficits, it complied with the terms of the AMCA by providing additional healthcare services to the poor. Dominican Hospital has a variety of free clinics for the poor as listed below.10 A. Dominican Pediatric Program. B. Dominican Prenatal Program. C. Tattoo Removal Service for Former Gang Members. D. Kidsmart in Schools Program. E. Dominican Pediatric Subspecialty Clinics: A joint venture with the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s’ Hospital at Stanford. F. Dominican RotaCare: Joint venture with the Santa Cruz Rotary Club. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This list is a sample of the many community services Dominican Hospital provides. - 26 Hospitals and Charity Care Dominican has done some very innovative and positive activities to support the health of the community, and the staff and leadership deserve positive recognition for these efforts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Dominican Hospital is to be commended for not only providing more than its fair share of charity care, but also for the wide range of healthcare clinics it provides. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Dominican is to be commended for its fine work. It is important to note as well that both Sutter and Watsonville Hospitals also provide absolutely critical services which enhance the health of the community. We are a community with many assets in health leadership, and they should be valued and supported in finding ways to stay viable and serve the community in this turbulent time in healthcare.
F13:
Dominican Hospital and Watsonville Hospital did not deduct the unpaid costs of public programs, as Sutter Hospital did for many years. Neither Dominican Hospital nor Watsonville Hospital carried forward the excess in one year to remove a deficit in the following year as Sutter Hospital did in 2002.11 Dominican Hospital and Watsonville Hospital also never deducted “uncompensated care write-offs” as Sutter Hospital did from 1996 through 1998. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. Dominican and Watsonville did not deduct the unpaid cost of government programs in their reports. Averaging is permissible in the agreement and available to all hospitals. It is not a contract violation as implied by the Grand Jury. Watsonville did average (carry over a deficit) from 1996 to 1997. All of the hospitals provide services which do not neatly fit into the categories on the County form, but these activities are still positive community health services which meet the intent of the agreement.
F14:
Watsonville Hospital has not had a deficit, except in 1996 when it appeared compliant because the hospital and the HSA did not find the computational error. According to the HSA, Watsonville Hospital’s late 2002 report will have a deficit and the hospital has asked whether the taxes that it pays could be used in exchange for its charity obligation. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. Watsonville is working on its reports, but audited reports have not arrived. The County will enter into discussions with Watsonville Hospital upon receipt of the 2002 and 2003 reports if there are shortfalls to be addressed. Ongoing audit problems will be addressed.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
If a hospital does report an AMCA deficit, indigent patient healthcare services needs should be fulfilled before any community benefit activities are approved. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The distinction made by the Grand Jury between indigent care and the services currently reported under community benefit is not a black and white one. Community benefit activities provided by Sutter include contributions to MediCruz which provides indigent healthcare. Sutter also provides Healthy Families premium payments, high risk obstetric and pediatric care, and specialist services, which all provide direct care or access to direct care for indigents, but these also are in the community benefits category in Sutter reports. Preventive health activities, like the senior health fair which reaches over 300 seniors and does screening and exams, are also important. (If the Grand Jury means community benefit activities provided by Sutter, like health education classes and materials, provision of space and donations to non-profits, these are indeed less important to the mission of the agreement.) This recommendation would require a contract amendment. The County does not believe an amendment as proposed would be helpful at this time.
R5:
The HSA should not allow non-compliance to go uncorrected beyond the amount of time stipulated (60 days after the hospitals’ submission of their reports) in the AMCA. Legal action should be taken if the hospitals don’t adhere to requirements of the AMCA and the county should enforce the appropriate penalties. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The County does work with contractors to fix deficits in contract compliance. In most cases this is voluntary and works very well. Legal action should be a last resort based on profound differences in interpretation and intent. There are no Hospitals and Charity Care - 31 defined penalties in the original agreement for late or unaudited reports. Having a clearer process for dispute resolution and conflicts would enhance the agreement as would clear penalties for late, unaudited, or non-compliant performance. The County and the three hospitals will be considering possible changes in the contract in this area.
R8:
Watsonville Hospital is to be commended for providing more than its fair share of charity care despite its status as a for-profit hospital. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. As stated above, all of the hospitals should be recognized for their contributions. Watsonville may be found in compliance when its reports are audited and finalized. The reports since the change in leadership are just provisional.
F15:
Sutter Hospital’s relationship to the Santa Cruz Medical Foundation and the Santa Cruz Medical Clinic cannot be fully understood without explaining the financial benefits of a medical foundation. Starting in 1978 the concept of the Medical Clinic Foundation model developed primarily in California. The medical foundation was “a technique for complying with the California corporate practice of medicine laws while at the same time establishing hospital ownership of medical practice assets. Typically, the Foundation is established as a tax-exempt organization and used by 11 The Health Services Agency allowed Sutter Hospital’s carry forward. Hospitals and Charity Care - 27 tax-exempt hospital systems.”12 “Their tax- exempt status presents definite advantages relative to income, financing, and contributions.”13 The medical foundations are also exempt from licensure by the state Department of Health Services. The Santa Cruz Medical Clinic falls under the following regulation. Clinics and facilities exempt from licensure include: A. A clinic operated by a non-profit corporation is exempt from federal income taxation under paragraph (3) of subsection C of Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, or B. A statutory successor thereof, that conducts medical research and health education and provides health care to its patients through a group of 40 or more physicians and surgeons, who are independent contractors representing not less than 10 board-certified specialties, and not less than two thirds of whom practice on a full-time basis at the clinic.”14 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Regulation of medical group practices is not within the scope or authority of the County. Many medical groups have gone bankrupt in the last decade and are trying to find ways to stay solvent with rapidly changing health financing pressures. The Santa Cruz Medical Clinic physicians were not party to the Access to Care Agreement. Sutter hospital is the party with which the County contracts. The physicians with Sutter hospital privileges are both SCMC and non-SCMC doctors. Sutter has developed incentives to assist with physician-linked access to hospital services. Under the current leadership, a smooth system has been developed which shares the responsibility over many physicians and also includes new specialists requested by the County with dedicated time for indigent patients.
F16:
Although Santa Cruz Medical Foundation charges patients and has a tax-exempt status, it recently sent out a letter stating that “Today, through our affiliation with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Sutter Santa Cruz serves as a true community- based, not-for-profit health care provider. Each year, we give back to our community. Now, we are asking our community to give back to us. Your gift in any amount will help us to uphold the high standards of medical care that so many people in our community depend upon.”15 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. 12 “Avoiding the Legal Minefields of Integrated Systems,” Medical Clinic Foundation, LexisNexis search. Gregory Georges, “Nonprofit Medical Foundations-A Corporate Practice of Medicine Problem?” LexisNexis search. Deering’s California Health & Safety Codes Annotated (section 1206, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., 2003) LexisNexis search. Sutter letter to the community in December 2003. - 28 Hospitals and Charity Care The County did not receive this letter and cannot comment on this finding. Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The Santa Cruz County main jail has been overcrowded since it opened in 1981. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The main jail needs additional capacity, with consideration of the next 10 to 20 years' projected inmate population. Avoiding action until another lawsuit forces action is both irresponsible and will be costly to settle. The continued decades of overcrowding will not go away by ignoring the problem. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County recognizes that a thorough analysis of the associated problems and the implementation of solutions requires the cooperation of a number of entities related to law enforcement, probation, the courts and health services. The Board has requested the Sheriff’s Office to return in October 2004 with a report on jail overcrowding. Subsequently, the Sheriff has organized a Jail Overcrowding Committee comprising representatives from the Sheriff’s Office, the Health Services Agency, County Counsel, the Santa Cruz City Police Department, the District Attorney’s Office, the Probation Department, the Courts, the Public Defender, State Parole and the County Administrative Office. The purpose of the committee is to explore the role of each of these agencies and how each affects the jail population. As of August 28, 2004, the committee has met twice and will continue to meet monthly during the coming months. Additionally, the Health Services Agency will begin working with the Sheriff and other local law enforcement agencies on a new program to help avoid unnecessary incarcerations and hospitalizations. An experienced mental health clinician will be involved in the 5150 (involuntary hold) evaluations to help access crisis medications and beds. Mental Health is scheduled to begin a pilot “ride along program” with the Sheriff in October 2004 as a part of this effort and hopes to expand joint 5150 evaluations with the Santa Cruz City Police Department in the near future. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff CANNOT RESPOND. This recommendation requires further analysis. There may be a need for an increase in capacity to incarcerate both sentenced and unsentenced inmates, and the Sheriff will continue to advise the County Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Office of those needs on an ongoing basis. It is possible, however, current systemic modifications and efficiencies that can mitigate the need for additional capacity, for the present time, and ensure that existing resources and systems are being fully utilized. The Sheriff formed a Jail Overcrowding Committee on July 23, 2004, composed of members of the Judiciary, - 12 Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding Prosecution, Defense, Probation, Parole, County Administration, County Counsel, Health Services Agency and other criminal justice professionals to study jail overcrowding and its causes, identify systemic problems contributing to jail overcrowding and recommend those modifications that can be accomplished without unreasonably compromising public safety. On August 24, 2004, the Sheriff formally requested a Local System Assessment by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to allow national correctional professionals to examine the Main Jail systems and make recommendations concerning jail overcrowding. The NIC has not responded as of this time.
F2:
Data on inmates transferred to the main jail for parole hearings (Morrissey) was evaluated for a 60-day period starting mid-August 2003. During this period, 20 inmates were transferred mostly from the Santa Rita State Prison to the Santa Cruz main jail to wait for their parole hearings. The holding period was distributed as follows: Number of Inmates Number of Days Held 2 1 4 4 1 5 11 6 1 12 1 16 Average Inmate Stay: 5.85 days Mid-August to Mid-October 2003 Table 1. Length of Stay for Inmates Awaiting Parole Hearings Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding P a g e 3 - 5 A holding period of five days or less requires scheduling transportation inbound and outbound within a two-day window around the day of a hearing. The Sheriffs department maintains that planning on anything shorter is not practical. If the total number of inmate days in our data could be reduced to an average of five days that would equal a total of 29 days in a 60-day period or less than one-half of an inmate on average. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. The Sheriff's Office coordinates with State Parole to transport parolees to and from Santa Rita Jail to the Main Jail as efficiently as possible based on existing transportation resources. Ninety percent of the parolees referenced in the Grand Jury Report were held six days or less at the Main Jail while involved in Morrissey hearings.
F3:
Data was analyzed for all inmates held in the main jail over 30 days from arraignment, but not sentenced. A snapshot of the data on November 18, 2003, revealed 124 inmates held over 30 days from arraignment. Additional holding time until the next scheduled court appearance for each case is totaled as well as the totals of motion delays initiated by defense, prosecution and judicial. These delays are coded in the court minute orders as “1050” motions. Data shows that most motions for delays are initiated by the defense. Some defendants prefer the Santa Cruz jail to state facilities, and any delays of the court process will count toward their ultimate sentence therefore defense attorneys have little incentive to expedite the process. However the prosecution requests delays as well, often because certain prosecution witnesses including arresting officers may not be available so a continuance is requested. Prosecutors usually have many cases pending and these delays, though not necessarily initiated by the prosecution, are accepted without much opposition. It falls on the judges to decide on these motion delays. Judges must consider the “fairness” as well as any judicial decisions that may be viewed as reason for an appeal. Using a normal distribution throughout the year, total delays over one month from arraignment contribute approximately 40 inmates to the overcrowded condition. The distribution of “1050” motions is as follows: - 6 Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding Number of Time Held as of Additional Time to Total Cumulative Inmates Nov. 18, 2003 Next Scheduled Months’ Delay Court Appearance Over Initial 30 Days 36 1 - 2 months 26.9 months 44.9 months 26 2 - 3 months 17 months 114.9 months 15 3 - 4 months 8.9 months 37.5 months 9 4 - 5 months 10 months 41.5 months 8 5 - 6 months 9 months 45 months 6 6 - 7 months 4.5 months 37.5 months 9 7 - 8 months 6.4 months 64.9 months 7 8 - 9 months 5.7 months 58.2 months 5 9 - 10 months 5.4 months 47.9 months 0 10 - 11 months --- --- 2 11 - 12 months 4.5 months 25.5 months 1 Over 1 year 2.1 months 14.1 months Total Cumulative Months' Delay Over 30 Days: 531.5 months Table 2. Inmates Held for 1050 Motions as of 11-18-2003
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Judges, while maintaining judicial fairness, need to be mindful of the community impact on legal motion delays as well as sequential short-term sentencing that maintains inmates in the main jail rather than remanding them to out-of-county state facilities. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. Because the Courts are a separate branch of government and judges are individually elected, the County Board of Supervisors has no role in their decisions. However, it should be noted that the Court is participating in and will play a critical role in the efforts of the Jail Overcrowding Committee.
F4:
Data was analyzed on inmates waiting for transfer to special rehabilitation programs including Proposition 36. A snapshot of data on November 10, 2003, revealed three inmates were being held at the main jail as custodial housing waiting for beds in special rehabilitation programs such as those mandated by Proposition
F5:
A snapshot of data on October 29, 2003 showed eight inmates in the main jail with sequential sentencings that exceeded one year. Normally inmates sentenced over one year for one or more offenses are transferred to state prisons, alleviating the main jail population. However when a convicted inmate is sequentially sentenced with terms less than one year, the court can remand them to local hold. Six different judges sentenced the eight inmates in this data category.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Judges, while maintaining judicial fairness, need to be mindful of the community impact on legal motion delays as well as sequential short-term sentencing that maintains inmates in the main jail rather than remanding them to out-of-county state facilities. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. Because the Courts are a separate branch of government and judges are individually elected, the County Board of Supervisors has no role in their decisions. However, it should be noted that the Court is participating in and will play a critical role in the efforts of the Jail Overcrowding Committee.
F6:
The daily OR (Own Recognizance) releases, by day of the week, for a 60-day period of May and June 2003 are shown in the table below: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Sheriff OR 50 50 44 45 66 86 102 Court OR 55 84 72 71 73 5 2 349(B) OR 52 40 32 41 60 91 84 CIT OR 13 9 6 6 2 0 0 Table 3. Own Recognizance Releases, May - June 2003 The four categories of OR release include the following: a. A Sheriff OR Release is based on guidelines that allow the County Detention Bureau discretion to release inmates with the provision that they appear for court arraignment. Since this is under the discretion of the Sheriff’s Detention Bureau, it is assumed that the bureau exercises the releases without delay to alleviate any unnecessary increase in the jail population. b. Court OR release is presently limited to Monday through Friday, causing the population in the main jail to increase during the weekends while these inmates await court hearings. A program to have pretrial release specialists review all arrestees and arrange for a judge to be available on weekends is no longer used in Santa Cruz County. When it was in effect, this program helped smooth out the population increase on weekends. It is difficult to specifically translate the numerical impact on overall population averages but, based on the limited data available, it could be as many as a 10 to 15 inmate reduction on average. - 8 Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding c. An OR release under Penal Code 849 (B) 2 is for arrests for public intoxication only. The arresting officer is authorized to release such an arrestee with the provision that he show for appointed arraignment after a several hour drying-out period. Since the arrestee stays incarcerated for less than one day, it is unlikely that any opportunity for population reduction exists in this category. d. The Health Services Agency’s Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) can recommend OR release for select individuals under its care while incarcerated. Since CIT does not operate over the weekend, no releases occurred during weekends. The total number of CIT releases is so small that very little benefit can be found by extending its release activity to weekends. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES. Category (b.) requires further explanation. The Probation Department currently operates the Pretrial Services Program and it is staffed by three full- time probation officers assigned to the Main Jail. Pretrial Services does work on selected weekends. The Sheriff formed a Jail Overcrowding Committee on July 23, 2004, composed of members of the criminal justice system, including the chief probation officer. The chief probation officer is currently reviewing the Pretrial Services Program to evaluate its efficiency. It is possible that adjustments to the program may have a positive impact on jail overcrowding.
F7:
The average daily population of inmates accused of crimes and determined by CIT to be mentally disturbed ranges from 50 to 70 people throughout the year. They are segregated from the main jail population and are overseen by the Health Services Agency’s Crisis Intervention Team. A snapshot of data on December 18, 2003 reveals 53 inmates meeting these criteria. Approximately forty of these inmates require psychotropic medication prescribed to manage serious bi-polar or schizophrenic conditions. Defense attorneys may request competency hearings under Penal Code 1368. The main jail holds defendants while the psychiatrist makes a determination and reports to the judge. The judge then rules whether the defendant can stand for the crimes accused. Any delays in the psychiatric determination, the judge’s ruling, or delays in holding inmates waiting for a bed to open at the state mental facility can increase the main jail population. Approximately one to three inmates are held for this process per month. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES.
F8:
Data to determine the impact on main jail population of decriminalizing drug offenses is difficult to analyze. Most offenders have complex histories and the booking reports reflect a large number of arrests for parole and probation violations Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding P a g e 3 - 9 and other crimes. The courts under state and federal statutes now determine whether these persons should be incarcerated. None of the 124 inmates in the Santa Cruz County court process that are 30 days past arraignment on November 18, 2003 are being held only for drug usage, possession or possession of paraphernalia. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES.
F9:
The main jail is now reviewed under new standards. When the main jail was built in 1981, the ratio for toilets was 1:8, showers 1:16, wash basins 1:8. The newer code ratio is less stringent with toilets 1:10, showers 1:20, etc. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES.
F10:
A VOTIS (Violent Offender Truth in Sentencing) federal grant enabled the Sheriff's Department to offset a cut in its operating budget that resulted in a staff reduction of 62 people. This reduction would have reduced the California Board of Corrections mandated capacity of the jail to 249 persons. Because of the VOTIS grant the mandated capacity can be maintained at 311 persons. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES. Physical plant improvements in North and South Housing allowed the Main Jail to increase its Board rated capacity (BRC) by 62 inmates, for a total BRC of 311 inmates.
F11:
The California Board of Corrections Biennial Inspection under Penal Code 6031 report of August 18, 2003 highlighted overcrowding as a significant non- compliance issue with the main jail as follows: “These crowded conditions and inadequate staffing levels expose the Sheriff’s Department and the County of Santa Cruz to potential litigation. As this situation persists with inmates literally pressed against one another, there is a greater likelihood for increased assaults (e.g. inmate versus inmate or inmate versus staff) resulting in serious injury. While we acknowledge the economic downturn to the State of California and the 58 counties of this State, we must inform you that the Santa Cruz County Main Jail is not in compliance with Title 15, CCR, Section 1027, Number of Personnel, and Title 24, CCR, Section 470A.2.9 Dayrooms.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. - 10 Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding The Sheriff is working to address these issues and has convened a committee to address issues arising from overcrowded facilities. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The main jail needs additional capacity, with consideration of the next 10 to 20 years' projected inmate population. Avoiding action until another lawsuit forces action is both irresponsible and will be costly to settle. The continued decades of overcrowding will not go away by ignoring the problem. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County recognizes that a thorough analysis of the associated problems and the implementation of solutions requires the cooperation of a number of entities related to law enforcement, probation, the courts and health services. The Board has requested the Sheriff’s Office to return in October 2004 with a report on jail overcrowding. Subsequently, the Sheriff has organized a Jail Overcrowding Committee comprising representatives from the Sheriff’s Office, the Health Services Agency, County Counsel, the Santa Cruz City Police Department, the District Attorney’s Office, the Probation Department, the Courts, the Public Defender, State Parole and the County Administrative Office. The purpose of the committee is to explore the role of each of these agencies and how each affects the jail population. As of August 28, 2004, the committee has met twice and will continue to meet monthly during the coming months. Additionally, the Health Services Agency will begin working with the Sheriff and other local law enforcement agencies on a new program to help avoid unnecessary incarcerations and hospitalizations. An experienced mental health clinician will be involved in the 5150 (involuntary hold) evaluations to help access crisis medications and beds. Mental Health is scheduled to begin a pilot “ride along program” with the Sheriff in October 2004 as a part of this effort and hopes to expand joint 5150 evaluations with the Santa Cruz City Police Department in the near future. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff CANNOT RESPOND. This recommendation requires further analysis. There may be a need for an increase in capacity to incarcerate both sentenced and unsentenced inmates, and the Sheriff will continue to advise the County Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Office of those needs on an ongoing basis. It is possible, however, current systemic modifications and efficiencies that can mitigate the need for additional capacity, for the present time, and ensure that existing resources and systems are being fully utilized. The Sheriff formed a Jail Overcrowding Committee on July 23, 2004, composed of members of the Judiciary, - 12 Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding Prosecution, Defense, Probation, Parole, County Administration, County Counsel, Health Services Agency and other criminal justice professionals to study jail overcrowding and its causes, identify systemic problems contributing to jail overcrowding and recommend those modifications that can be accomplished without unreasonably compromising public safety. On August 24, 2004, the Sheriff formally requested a Local System Assessment by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to allow national correctional professionals to examine the Main Jail systems and make recommendations concerning jail overcrowding. The NIC has not responded as of this time.
F36:
None of these inmates had been held over a week. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. Program capacity is a factor beyond the control of the Sheriff's Office and lack of program capacity or inmate assessment for program eligibility may contribute to Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding P a g e 3 - 7 jail crowding. The number of inmates who are awaiting a rehabilitation program vary. On August 29, 2004, there were 11 inmates awaiting a program.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
Detention staff should be commended for doing their best to maintain standards under difficult conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County Board of Supervisors appreciates and shares the Grand Jury’s recognition of the Detention Bureau staff. Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding P a g e 3 - 1 3
Findings & Recommendations
100 findings
F1:
According to California law, Health and Safety Code 119303 (a), every person engaged in the business of tattooing, body piercing, or permanent cosmetics is required to register with the health department of the county in which they are doing business. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F2:
Presently the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health (EH) department requires body art practitioners to register, provide a business address, obtain a copy of the department’s standards (based on the AB 186 “Proposed Model Program”), commit to comply with these standards and pay a one time registration fee of $50 as well as Santa Cruz County - 49 an annual inspection fee of $105. These registration and inspection fees cover the EH department’s administration costs. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Environmental Health does require registration and commitment to comply with the Proposed Model Program standards, yet we do not charge a one-time registration fee of $50 nor is there an annual inspection fee of $105. The fee of $105 for FY 2003-04 was a “filing fee” which is applied to recovery of the department’s administration costs.
F3:
According to Environmental Health, health inspections are not performed. Instead, a staff member from EH visits the body art facilities to verify that the individuals registered are still practicing body art. EH said it does not have the standards to go beyond that. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F4:
At eight studios visited by the Grand Jury between October 2003 and March 2004, proprietors stated they had never received a visit to check registration nor an inspection from any health agency. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. Most if not all body art facilities with registered practitioners have been inspected within the last 12 months (as of the date of the Report). EHS’s ENVISION database records the dates of previous visits for each practitioner.
F5:
More recently, EH said that its staff is visiting these facilities to check registration and spend time talking with body art facility owners about their concerns regarding their industry and potential public health issues. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F6:
Permanent cosmetic practitioners are inspected by a state health agency because they also perform other cosmetic procedures. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. Permanent cosmetic practitioners are registered by Environmental Health.
F7:
One body art practitioner said she had called the county repeatedly to obtain a copy of the standards. - 50 Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND. Specific data was not provided.
F8:
As of January 2004, Santa Cruz County Environmental Health (EH) had registered seventeen body art practitioners: ten tattooists; two body piercers and five who apply permanent cosmetics (actually a temporary or semi-permanent tattoo). Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Currently Environmental Health has registered 40 practitioners.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should ask health officials to enforce the violation to perform body art without being registered. Currently, the penalty is $500 per violation. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented as part of the activities of the Consumer Protection section of Environmental Health.
F9:
Of the eleven studios advertised in a 2003 local phone directory, the proprietors of eight studios cooperated with the Grand Jury by agreeing to an interview and a tour of their facilities. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND. Specific data was not provided.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Health officials should speak with all body art practitioners to verify minimum age requirements are being met by notarized parental consent. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Environmental Health Services reorganized the Consumer Protection section in July 2004 and instituted an active program to contact body art practitioners to ensure compliance with health and safety standards.
R2:
Health officials should consider other options for collecting information about rogue body artists. County of Santa Cruz, Health Services Agency, “Essential Public Health Reporting Guidelines.” - 76 Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented as part of the activities of the Consumer Protection section of Environmental Health.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should ask health officials to enforce the violation to perform body art without being registered. Currently, the penalty is $500 per violation. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented as part of the activities of the Consumer Protection section of Environmental Health.
R19:
The Board of Supervisors and the Health Services Agency should commend the body art practitioners of Santa Cruz County who, in absence of a state mandate, voluntarily adhere to suggested health and safety standards to protect themselves and their clients. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County concurs with the Grand Jury’s commendation of practitioners who comply with health and safety standards.
F10:
Health officials said they have received no complaints about any body art facility in recent years. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The agreement is as of the date of the report.
F11:
A few body art practitioners told the Grand Jury that there are a few local shops with inexperienced, even dangerous operators. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND. Specific data was not provided.
F12:
In a recent article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel newspaper, one body art practitioner said that some artists put making money before taking safety precautions. Another cited one studio not in compliance with the sanitation, sterilization and safety Santa Cruz County - 51 standards that “cross-contaminated everything and tattooed anyone, at any age, as long as they could pay.”19 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County is aware of the article but has not received any formal complaints of these types of operations.
F13:
A few practitioners said that much of their work was “fix it” jobs, correcting botched tattoos or piercings. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND. Specific data was not provided.
F14:
Health officials said they find some body art businesses but not all of them. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Although the County actively registers and visits all known body art business, some businesses may not be known to the County.
F15:
Between November 2003 and February 2004, the Grand Jury discovered at least six unregistered individuals advertising their craft: • One unregistered practitioner was distributing business cards on Pacific Avenue offering body piercing, branding and scarification. • Another advertised his craft, tattooing and piercing, on the side of a van seen parked in the Santa Cruz County Jail parking lot. • The third, a piercer, owns a business visited by the Grand Jury and employs an unknown number of other unregistered practitioners. • The fourth and fifth unregistered operators apply permanent cosmetics and were interviewed by the Grand Jury. One unregistered practitioner was not aware of AB 186 regulations, health and safety standards or screening for heart problems. • The sixth unregistered practitioner pierces in a downtown shop. Depending on who answered the phone at this shop, one could schedule an appointment for a piercing or be informed that the establishment sells only tee shirts. Robyn Moormeister, “Body Art: How Risky?”, Santa Cruz Sentinel, 24 August 2003. - 52 Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND. Specific data was not provided.
F16:
Currently, health officials cannot say whether unregistered body art practitioners: • Follow any health and safety standards. • Caution their clients about undergoing procedures while intoxicated. • Verify minimum age requirements are met. • Screen their clients to inquire about pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F17:
Local body art professionals say that if requirements were enforced it would drastically reduce the risk of blood-borne disease transmission like hepatitis and HIV.20 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND. Specific data is not known.
F18:
During the last ten years tattooing has become one of America’s fastest growing categories of retail business. An estimated 15,000 tattoo studios practice the once- taboo form of body art.21 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE TREND. Specific data is not known.
F19:
Health officials said the number of shops has remained stable in Santa Cruz (County) over the last ten years. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The agreement is based on registration data since 1998.
F20:
Local body art professionals said they have seen an increase in both studios and practitioners in the same time. Robyn Moormeister, “Body Art: How Risky?”, Santa Cruz Sentinel, 24 August 2003. U.S. News & World Report. Santa Cruz County - 53 • One long time Santa Cruz tattoo practitioner said: “Sixteen years ago, there was one (tattoo) shop and now there’s four or five.” • Another practitioner said that the number of local tattooists and piercers had risen over the last five or six years. He estimated that personally he knew “more than twenty,” admitting that he did not know all of them. • These numbers do not include those who apply semi-permanent tattooing/permanent cosmetics. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE TREND. Specific data is not known.
F21:
To comply with California law regarding tattooing or piercing, practitioners must verify that a client is of the age of majority with either valid photo identification or a parent’s notarized note. • In seven of the nine shops offering piercing and/or tattooing, practitioners follow this law. • In five of these establishments, proprietors photocopy the client’s identification and attach it to a release form signed by the client prior to any procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE CITED REQUIREMENT. Specific data is not known.
F22:
According to the practitioners, most clients requesting permanent cosmetics are older adults. The high cost of permanent cosmetics deters younger clients. If necessary, practitioners ask for photo identification. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE TREND. Specific data is not known.
F23:
For piercing, clients under the age of 18 are required to have notarized, written parental consent if the parent is not present during the procedure. One local piercer requires a notarized parent’s permission note; another requires a parent’s permission note, but does not require it to be notarized. - 54 Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE CITED REQUIREMENT. Specific data is not known.
F24:
Neither the American nor the Canadian Red Cross will accept blood donations from anyone who has had a body piercing or tattoo within the previous year because both procedures can transmit dangerous blood-borne diseases.22 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F25:
The three major viral diseases spread by blood and other body fluids are hepatitis B and C and the Human Immune-deficiency Virus (HIV).23 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F26:
Health officials estimate as many as 8,000 people in Santa Cruz County are infected with hepatitis C, which often goes undetected in its victims for two decades. Unlike hepatitis B, hepatitis C has no vaccine. Approximately 1,300 county residents know they are infected.24 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F27:
The California HCV (hepatitis C virus) Task Force recently called for a partnership between all Californians and public health departments, professional medical associations and other health and medical providers to take the required action to responsibly eradicate this disease as a major health epidemic.25 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The agreement is with the principle of this finding.
F28:
Sanitation measures employed in each of the local facilities visited by the Grand Jury include: • Disinfecting work surfaces between clients. • Frequent hand washing. • The use of disposable surgical gloves. KidsHealth Web site. Center for Disease Control Web site. Shanna McCord, “Board OK’s Free Hepatitis C Tests for Area Patients,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 28 January 2004. Center for Disease Control Web site. Santa Cruz County - 55 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE TREND. Specific data is not known.
F29:
Sterilization of instruments in an autoclave helps prevent cross-contamination. Used in six of the eight studios visited by the Grand Jury, autoclaves are the only reliable means of sterilization recognized by the Center for Disease Control 26 (The two permanent cosmetic practitioners do not use an autoclave, but do use single-use needles in their work.) Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE CITED PREVENTION TECHNIQUE. Specific data is not known.
F30:
According to the Center for Disease Control, autoclaves must be tested regularly. Use of a properly maintained autoclave is extremely important because if equipment is not properly sterilized between uses, infectious diseases can be spread.27 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F31:
The threat of HIV and HCV transmission is of concern because there is no vaccine for these infectious diseases.28 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. There are other concerns about these diseases, other than a lack of a vaccine.
F32:
Four of the body art studios do periodic spore testing as recommended. Other studios either depend on a calibration system to indicate the autoclave’s accuracy or do not test it. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE CITED PREVENTION TECHNIQUE. Center for Disease Control Web site. Center for Disease Control Web site. Center for Disease Control Web site. - 56 Santa Cruz County Specific data is not known.
F33:
Local health officials said that most body art shops do a very good job of sterilizing needles. However, they do not go into all the shops. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors notes that the Consumer Protection section of Environmental Health Services has visited all known local shops.
F34:
Health officials said there is a potential health hazard of unsterilized needles in tattoo or body piercing establishments. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F35:
Student health personnel provide University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) students with educational pamphlets to help them make informed, healthy decisions and to reduce the risk of body art-related infection. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE CITED PREVENTION TECHNIQUE. Specific data is not known.
F36:
At all eight studios visited by the Grand Jury, clients must sign a release form that includes questions about blood-borne diseases. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE CITED PREVENTION TECHNIQUE. Specific data is not known.
F37:
Physicians and dentists advise all patients at risk for heart valve infection to use preventive antibiotics prior to any invasive medical or dental procedure. About half of the local practitioners screen for pre-existing medical conditions and recommend their clients use preventive antibiotics even though this is not covered in the standards. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE CITED PREVENTION TECHNIQUE. Santa Cruz County - 57 Specific data is not known.
F38:
Santa Cruz County health officials agree on the issue of pre-notification. They stated that even if the regulations had been in place, it would not have saved the life of a University of California, Davis student who died in August 2003 of a fatal infection, reportedly because he did not take his prescribed antibiotics before the procedure. The regulations specify notification after the procedure but requiring pre-notification is not in the regulations. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Presently there are no regulations regarding both pre- or post-warnings.
F39:
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommends that personal service workers who tattoo (including semi-permanent tattooing as in permanent cosmetics) and those who pierce be vaccinated against hepatitis B.29 As of January 2004, only two local studios require their practitioners to be vaccinated. Many practitioners and owners of body art establishments were unaware of the need for hepatitis B vaccination. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE CITED PREVENTION TECHNIQUE. Specific data is not known.
F40:
Any employee with the potential for exposure to blood or other potentially infectious material is required to take Universal Precautions training annually.30 This training provides information about infection control procedures involving the use of protective barriers. These barriers include gloves, gowns, aprons, masks and protective eyewear, which can reduce the risk of exposure. These measures also include personal hygiene practices like hand washing and the disposal of contaminated materials.31 In accordance with OSHA standards (Universal Precautions) and an Exposure Control Plan, the same health standards employed by physicians and dentists, safety precautions in all eight studios visited by the Grand Jury include: 29 Center for Disease Control Web site. Occupational Safety and Health Agency Web site. Occupational Safety and Health Agency Web site. - 58 Santa Cruz County • Discarding all single-use materials, including gloves, sharps and razors. Sharps are deposited in a biohazard container, which is periodically emptied at nearby medical or hazardous waste facilities. • In studios offering tattooing or permanent cosmetics practitioners use individual disposable containers to hold ink, thus avoiding cross- contamination. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE CITED PREVENTION TECHNIQUE (OSHA REQUIREMENT). Specific data is not known.
F41:
No piercing guns are used by any of the seventeen registered body art practitioners. • Local health officials and professional piercers said this method is unsafe, primarily because the guns cannot be properly sterilized. • Blood can aerosolize and contaminate the piercing gun.32 • Piercing guns can shatter tissue and cartilage.33 • Professional body artists said the guns are misused by untrained individuals, such as clerks in clothing or department stores and should be outlawed.34 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE CITED PREVENTION TECHNIQUES. Specific data is not known.
F42:
Piercing guns are exempt from the regulations. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. Currently there are not any regulations in place that address “piercing guns.”
F43:
Professional body art practitioners know the health risks increase exponentially when amateurs or untrained individuals perform tattooing or piercing. People who tattoo or pierce themselves or their friends more frequently ignore sterility procedures.35 32 Association of Professional Piercers Web site. Association of Professional Piercers Web site. Association of Professional Piercers Web site.. Kathlyn Gay and Christine Whittington, Body Marks. Santa Cruz County - 59 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County CANNOT RESPOND BUT AGREES WITH THE EXPRESSED CONCERN. Specific data is not known.
F44:
Important nerve tissue, muscle tissue and organs can suffer permanent injury in an improperly performed piercing.36 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F45:
A recent review of available body piercing literature focusing on medical complications by the University of Wisconsin Department of Medicine concluded that body piercing carries substantial risk of morbidity. It also found most body piercing in the U.S. is performed by unlicensed, unregistered individuals.37 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The County has not reviewed the report from the University of Wisconsin, and cannot therefore verify the accuracy of these findings. In addition, these reports may not necessarily apply to Santa Cruz County.
F46:
Piercing the upper ear sometimes results in difficult-to-treat infections leading to permanent disfigurement, according to a study of an Oregon outbreak. Seven young people developed infections after upper ear piercings and were left with surgical deformities. (Doctors documented 18 other suspected cases linked to the same facility.) The infection, caused by a pseudomonas organism contaminating the disinfectant solution, moved the state to ban the type of piercing gun used on those infected. Oregon now requires ear-piercers to have basic first-aid training.38 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The County does not have specific information about the outbreak in Oregon, but agrees that piercings can result in difficult to treat infections.
F47:
Although a consistent correlation is not known between piercing and endocarditis (most commonly seen as a bacterial infection of one or more of the heart valves), the number of case reports is increasing, and a correlation may well exist.39 36 Laura Reybold, The Dangers of Tattooing and Body Piercing. S.S. Tweeten and L.S. Rickman, “Infectious Complications of Body Piercing.” 38 Journal of American Medical Association, February 2004, and CNN Web site: “Oregon Outbreak.” 39 Laura Reybold, The Dangers of Tattooing and Body Piercing. - 60 Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County has seen no data that relates piercing to endocarditis and cannot therefore verify the accuracy of this finding.
F48:
The U. S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) plays the leading role in investigating and documenting the patterns and causes of AIDS and hepatitis throughout the United States. Regarding endocarditis in a piercing-related case it said, “Until prospective randomized studies shed light on the relationship between piercing and endocarditis, prophylactic measures are indicated and should be formulated, particularly for persons at high risk, e.g., those with structural heart diseases.”40 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F49:
In a 1999 study, the Mayo Clinic found that, in people with a body piercing, nearly one out of four patients with congenital heart disease suffered from infection as a result of the piercing. Only six percent of these patients took antibiotics preventively to fend off an infection.41 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County has not reviewed the report from the Mayo Clinic, and cannot therefore verify the accuracy of these findings. In addition, these reports may not necessarily apply to Santa Cruz County.
F50:
Recently the hand-held micro pigmentation machines used for semi-permanent cosmetics underwent a yearlong investigation by the British periodical Health and Safety Executive (HSE). This investigation showed that these machines, like piercing guns, could provide a serious health risk. This system’s inability to be adequately cleaned between clients was brought to the attention of a United Kingdom Environmental Health Service agent by a concerned registered tattooist. Health officials then visited all known users to ensure these machines were taken out of use.42 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County has not reviewed the report from the Health and Safety Executive and cannot therefore verify the accuracy of these findings or their relevance to Santa Cruz County. Center for Disease Control Web site. Kathlyn Gay and Christine Whittington, Body Marks. Health and Safety Executive Web site. Santa Cruz County - 61
F51:
Currently practitioners in the body art industry are not required to complete any health and safety training. Health risks and safety measures depend on the environment in which a practitioner learns the craft and any personal desire to self- educate. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F52:
In addition, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the nation’s foremost authority on communicable diseases, said that personal service workers who do tattooing or body piercing should be educated about how HIV is transmitted and take precautions to prevent transmission of HIV and other blood-borne infections in their settings.43 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F53:
A county health official said that education is the most important public health tool. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F54:
The American Red Cross offers Universal Precautions courses designed to be relevant to body artists for about $20.44 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F55:
In the body art industry, it is customary to follow guidelines recommended by professional organizations such as the Alliance of Professional Tattooists (APT) or the Association of Professional Piercers (APP). The primary purpose of professional body art organizations is to promote education, health and safety as it concerns this industry. These organizations offer workshops that provide up-to-date information on sterilization procedures and complete infection-control guidelines.45 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F56:
Members of APT must take a nine-hour safety seminar in microbiology and disease transmission within two years of joining and must have practiced the art for a minimum of three years in an established location. APT tries “to educate lawmakers, dispel myths and counter misinformation with researched fact.”46 As of January 2004, six of the ten registered tattooists belong to APT. Center for Disease Control Web site. American Red Cross Web site. Association of Professional Piercers and Alliance of Professional Tattooists Web sites. Alliance of Professional Tattooists Web site. - 62 Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F57:
Part of APP’s philosophy is that “piercers must act ethically, responsibly and be accountable for quality service.” The APP certifies piercers who agree to follow strict health and safety guidelines.47 As of January 2004, one registered piercer said he was joining APP. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County cannot respond to the accuracy of the information presented in this finding, but agrees with the philosophy and prevention techniques.
F58:
Posted rules in some local body art shops forbid clients to be intoxicated. However, some patients said they were intoxicated while undergoing body art procedures. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County cannot respond to this finding, because specific data is unknown, but we agree with the cited prevention techniques.
F59:
In one local body art studio, most of the staff is trained in Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and one practitioner is an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. Specific data is unknown.
F60:
In local tattoo and/or body piercing studios, practitioners learn their art through an apprenticeship or on-the-job training. Their experience ranges from four to 20 years. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. Specific data is unknown.
F61:
Permanent cosmetics practitioners interviewed by the Grand Jury had experience ranging from two to 12 years. Both had completed training programs in applying permanent cosmetics. One completed coursework in a single weekend and the other attended a more comprehensive program that entailed 40-50 hours of coursework. Both practitioners said that the portion of their training dedicated to health and safety was minimal. Association of Professional Piercers Web site. Santa Cruz County - 63 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. Specific data is unknown.
F62:
More stringent health and safety training is required for non-invasive procedures such as those practiced by manicurists and hair stylists. Requirements for practitioners in hair and nail salons include: • Twenty-nine hours of health and safety training as part of a 1,600-hour program. • Must pass both an oral and a written exam. • The workplace is subject to an annual state health inspection.48 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County cannot respond to the accuracy of this finding. Regulation of manicurists and hair stylists is the responsibility of the State Bureau of Cosmetology rather than the local health agencies.
F63:
The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducts field investigations of possible health hazards in the workplace. Recently NIOSH evaluated potential occupational blood-borne pathogen exposure during body piercing. NIOSH found: • Body piercers are at risk for infection with blood-borne pathogens through needle sticks and contact with contaminated surfaces. • The piercers had completed blood-borne pathogen training. • The wrong type of gloves were worn handling decontaminates. • Studios did not have OSHA exposure control programs in place. • Ventilation systems did not provide adequate filtration and directional airflow. In this evaluation, NIOSH made health and safety suggestions for both studio owners and the body piercers.49 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The County has reviewed these findings and supports the health and safety suggestions. It should be noted that the NIOSH findings and recommendations are 48 Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Health Hazard Evaluation, Center for Disease Control Web site. - 64 Santa Cruz County implemented through the state OSHA program. The County Health Services Agency does not have occupational and safety responsibilities.
F64:
Even when a reputable artist under hygienic conditions performs body art and aftercare directions are followed, infection can occur because of improper hygiene in areas of the body with high bacterial content. Piercing has a greater tendency toward infection because often the piercing goes through all layers of the tissue pierced, not just through superficial skin layers. Because piercing takes weeks or months to heal, the risk of infection is prolonged.50 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F65:
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said, “Healing of piercing generally will take weeks, and sometimes even months, and the pierced tissue could conceivably be abraded (torn or cut) or inflamed even after healing. Therefore, a theoretical HIV transmission risk does exist if the unhealed or abraded tissues come into contact with an infected person’s blood or other infectious body fluid. Additionally, HIV could be transmitted if instruments contaminated with blood are not sterilized or disinfected between clients.”51 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F66:
Reputable practitioners carefully explain aftercare instructions to each client to help prevent infection and promote healing. Following a reputable practitioner’s aftercare advice greatly improves the chances for a healthy, positive outcome.52 In all of the studios visited by the Grand Jury, practitioners explain aftercare to clients in detail. They also distribute written instructions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES WITH THE CITED PREVENTION TECHNIQUES.
F67:
UCSC health officials said that most infection from body art is due to the patient ignoring or forgetting the aftercare advice. In addition, there is a greater incidence of infection with piercing than with tattooing. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County has no information regarding the UCSC findings, but agrees with the importance of infection control. Laura Reynold, The Dangers of Tattooing and Body Piercing. Center for Disease Control Web site. Laura Reynold, The Dangers of Tattooing and Body Piercing. Santa Cruz County - 65
F68:
Some contradictions with body art aftercare instruction exist in local shops: • Aftercare instructions from some body art studios recommend washing with anti-bacterial soap; others insist the only aftercare cleaning should be with a saline solution made with edible sea salt dissolved in water. The saline solution cleaning procedure is also recommended by APT and APP. • Some local practitioners recommend the use of a topical ointment such as Neosporin. Many medical authorities argue against the use of Neosporin because one of the three antibiotics it contains, neomycin, can cause an allergic reaction. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Different shops may issue contradictory aftercare instructions, but the County agrees with the importance of good hygiene after such procedures are completed.
F69:
Non-infectious risks in body art include allergic reactions from materials used in tattooing and piercing procedures or to aftercare products to aid in healing.53 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F70:
The greatest potential for an allergic reaction in tattooing during the procedure comes from the pigments. Tattoo ‘ink’ is a misnomer, because black is the only actual ink used in tattooing. Other colors are made from mixing dry pigments with a suspension fluid. In addition to suspension fluid, metallic salts in certain colors can cause allergic reactions. Premixed colors made from plastic-based pigments are even more likely to cause allergic reactions.54 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County cannot respond to the accuracy of this finding, because specific data is unknown, but agrees with the expressed concern regarding potential allergic reactions.
F71:
Fewer than half of the local practitioners offering tattooing or semi-permanent tattooing (permanent cosmetics) offer clients a “patch test” to check for possible allergic reaction to the dye. Association of Professional Piercers and Alliance of Professional Tattooists Web sites. Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book. - 66 Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. Specific data is unknown.
Related Recommendations (7)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R10:
County health officials and the Board of Supervisors should ensure that all body art studios warn the public about the mandatory use of antibiotic precautions for those individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. - 78 Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R12:
While the county does not collect blood donations, delegating collection to blood banks and the Red Cross instead, it should align itself with a similar cautious posture to that of the Red Cross. Both the Canadian and American Red Cross refuse to accept any blood donations from anyone who has had a tattoo or body piercing within the last year because both procedures can transmit dangerous blood-borne diseases. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. The County does not collect blood, but in a clinical setting treats all body substances as potentially hazardous.
R13:
If the health community of Santa Cruz cannot provide the scientific certainty that regulations will not prevent the transmission of infectious deadly disease, it would be prudent for public health agents to err on the side of caution. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While it is often prudent to err on the side of caution, all public health actions should be based on sound science and evidence. The evidence currently available concerning public health risks from body art is insufficient to warrant the creation of a local body of regulations. Santa Cruz County - 79
R14:
Health officials should examine their data to determine the risk of exposing county residents and visitors to infectious disease through unsafe body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. At this point, no evidence has been found linking local infections to body art practices. The County will continue to monitor infection reports.
F72:
Allergic reactions during piercing come from the type of metal the jewelry is made of or the cleaning solution used. The highest grade of surgical stainless steel, niobium, titanium and 14 or 18 karat gold are the preferred metals because they are the least reactive and won’t leach impurities into the body.55 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (5)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R10:
County health officials and the Board of Supervisors should ensure that all body art studios warn the public about the mandatory use of antibiotic precautions for those individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. - 78 Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R12:
While the county does not collect blood donations, delegating collection to blood banks and the Red Cross instead, it should align itself with a similar cautious posture to that of the Red Cross. Both the Canadian and American Red Cross refuse to accept any blood donations from anyone who has had a tattoo or body piercing within the last year because both procedures can transmit dangerous blood-borne diseases. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. The County does not collect blood, but in a clinical setting treats all body substances as potentially hazardous.
F73:
Many body art professionals recommend the use of skin lotion for use on the body art site. Others disagree, saying lotion has been shown to be a vehicle for bacteria, which can cause infections and scabbing.56 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County agrees that body art professionals have different opinions regarding the use of skin lotion on body art sites.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
F74:
Adverse effects such as scarring or allergic reactions have been reported with the use of Q-switch lasers for tattoo removal.57 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The County has no information with which to evaluate this finding. Tattoos are commonly removed by medical specialists who determine the type of equipment used. The County has received no reports on any types of laser or other equipment.
Related Recommendations (5)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R13:
If the health community of Santa Cruz cannot provide the scientific certainty that regulations will not prevent the transmission of infectious deadly disease, it would be prudent for public health agents to err on the side of caution. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While it is often prudent to err on the side of caution, all public health actions should be based on sound science and evidence. The evidence currently available concerning public health risks from body art is insufficient to warrant the creation of a local body of regulations. Santa Cruz County - 79
R14:
Health officials should examine their data to determine the risk of exposing county residents and visitors to infectious disease through unsafe body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. At this point, no evidence has been found linking local infections to body art practices. The County will continue to monitor infection reports.
F75:
Medical personnel and laboratories are required by state law to report certain infectious diseases. They do not usually report all bacterial infections related to body art. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Medical personnel and laboratories are required by state law to report certain unusual infectious diseases. Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book. Alliance of Professional Tattooists Web site. The Medical Letter, and AAD Web site. Santa Cruz County - 67
Related Recommendations (6)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R8:
The Health Services Agency should require all health practitioners to report body art related infection. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Current regulations require medical practitioners to report all unusual diseases, which would include body art related infections.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R13:
If the health community of Santa Cruz cannot provide the scientific certainty that regulations will not prevent the transmission of infectious deadly disease, it would be prudent for public health agents to err on the side of caution. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While it is often prudent to err on the side of caution, all public health actions should be based on sound science and evidence. The evidence currently available concerning public health risks from body art is insufficient to warrant the creation of a local body of regulations. Santa Cruz County - 79
R14:
Health officials should examine their data to determine the risk of exposing county residents and visitors to infectious disease through unsafe body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. At this point, no evidence has been found linking local infections to body art practices. The County will continue to monitor infection reports.
F76:
Infections are usually listed as reportable communicable diseases so it is difficult to track data. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. Not all infections are reportable or necessarily communicable. However, the County agrees that data tracking is a challenge.
Related Recommendations (6)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R8:
The Health Services Agency should require all health practitioners to report body art related infection. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Current regulations require medical practitioners to report all unusual diseases, which would include body art related infections.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R13:
If the health community of Santa Cruz cannot provide the scientific certainty that regulations will not prevent the transmission of infectious deadly disease, it would be prudent for public health agents to err on the side of caution. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While it is often prudent to err on the side of caution, all public health actions should be based on sound science and evidence. The evidence currently available concerning public health risks from body art is insufficient to warrant the creation of a local body of regulations. Santa Cruz County - 79
R14:
Health officials should examine their data to determine the risk of exposing county residents and visitors to infectious disease through unsafe body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. At this point, no evidence has been found linking local infections to body art practices. The County will continue to monitor infection reports.
F77:
Out of the state’s standard list of reportable disease, the diseases one might conceivably contract from tattooing or body piercing are HIV or hepatitis B or C. Otherwise, the more common staph or strep bacterial infections would get reported as “occurrence of any unusual disease.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Common staph or strep infections are not necessarily reportable.
Related Recommendations (6)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R8:
The Health Services Agency should require all health practitioners to report body art related infection. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Current regulations require medical practitioners to report all unusual diseases, which would include body art related infections.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R13:
If the health community of Santa Cruz cannot provide the scientific certainty that regulations will not prevent the transmission of infectious deadly disease, it would be prudent for public health agents to err on the side of caution. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While it is often prudent to err on the side of caution, all public health actions should be based on sound science and evidence. The evidence currently available concerning public health risks from body art is insufficient to warrant the creation of a local body of regulations. Santa Cruz County - 79
R14:
Health officials should examine their data to determine the risk of exposing county residents and visitors to infectious disease through unsafe body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. At this point, no evidence has been found linking local infections to body art practices. The County will continue to monitor infection reports.
F78:
UCSC Student Health Services are required to report only multi-drug resistant staph infection. They see approximately four or five such cases per year. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Staph infections that manifest as toxic shock or in an outbreak also are reportable.
Related Recommendations (6)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R8:
The Health Services Agency should require all health practitioners to report body art related infection. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Current regulations require medical practitioners to report all unusual diseases, which would include body art related infections.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R13:
If the health community of Santa Cruz cannot provide the scientific certainty that regulations will not prevent the transmission of infectious deadly disease, it would be prudent for public health agents to err on the side of caution. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While it is often prudent to err on the side of caution, all public health actions should be based on sound science and evidence. The evidence currently available concerning public health risks from body art is insufficient to warrant the creation of a local body of regulations. Santa Cruz County - 79
R14:
Health officials should examine their data to determine the risk of exposing county residents and visitors to infectious disease through unsafe body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. At this point, no evidence has been found linking local infections to body art practices. The County will continue to monitor infection reports.
F79:
Ninety percent of infections relating to body art that the Student Health Services sees respond well to antibiotics. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. Student Health Services did not report specific data to the County.
Related Recommendations (6)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R8:
The Health Services Agency should require all health practitioners to report body art related infection. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Current regulations require medical practitioners to report all unusual diseases, which would include body art related infections.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R13:
If the health community of Santa Cruz cannot provide the scientific certainty that regulations will not prevent the transmission of infectious deadly disease, it would be prudent for public health agents to err on the side of caution. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While it is often prudent to err on the side of caution, all public health actions should be based on sound science and evidence. The evidence currently available concerning public health risks from body art is insufficient to warrant the creation of a local body of regulations. Santa Cruz County - 79
R14:
Health officials should examine their data to determine the risk of exposing county residents and visitors to infectious disease through unsafe body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. At this point, no evidence has been found linking local infections to body art practices. The County will continue to monitor infection reports.
F80:
California hospitals, clinics and physicians are not required to report infections related to body art. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. An unusual infection related to body art or two or more cases related to a common source would be considered unusual and therefore would be reportable. - 68 Santa Cruz County
Related Recommendations (6)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R8:
The Health Services Agency should require all health practitioners to report body art related infection. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Current regulations require medical practitioners to report all unusual diseases, which would include body art related infections.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R13:
If the health community of Santa Cruz cannot provide the scientific certainty that regulations will not prevent the transmission of infectious deadly disease, it would be prudent for public health agents to err on the side of caution. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While it is often prudent to err on the side of caution, all public health actions should be based on sound science and evidence. The evidence currently available concerning public health risks from body art is insufficient to warrant the creation of a local body of regulations. Santa Cruz County - 79
R14:
Health officials should examine their data to determine the risk of exposing county residents and visitors to infectious disease through unsafe body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. At this point, no evidence has been found linking local infections to body art practices. The County will continue to monitor infection reports.
F81:
Local disease control said no cases of HIV or hepatitis have been reported. It has no methodology by which reportable cases of these infectious diseases can be investigated for possible relationship to body art. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Tracing may be possible in acute cases or if clusters of diseases develop.
Related Recommendations (6)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R8:
The Health Services Agency should require all health practitioners to report body art related infection. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Current regulations require medical practitioners to report all unusual diseases, which would include body art related infections.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R13:
If the health community of Santa Cruz cannot provide the scientific certainty that regulations will not prevent the transmission of infectious deadly disease, it would be prudent for public health agents to err on the side of caution. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While it is often prudent to err on the side of caution, all public health actions should be based on sound science and evidence. The evidence currently available concerning public health risks from body art is insufficient to warrant the creation of a local body of regulations. Santa Cruz County - 79
R14:
Health officials should examine their data to determine the risk of exposing county residents and visitors to infectious disease through unsafe body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. At this point, no evidence has been found linking local infections to body art practices. The County will continue to monitor infection reports.
F82:
The county does not do any disease surveillance of the relationship between body art and hepatitis or HIV. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The long incubation periods of hepatitis and HIV make it very difficult to determine the source of the infection. Tracing may be possible in acute cases or if clusters of diseases develop.
Related Recommendations (6)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R8:
The Health Services Agency should require all health practitioners to report body art related infection. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Current regulations require medical practitioners to report all unusual diseases, which would include body art related infections.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R13:
If the health community of Santa Cruz cannot provide the scientific certainty that regulations will not prevent the transmission of infectious deadly disease, it would be prudent for public health agents to err on the side of caution. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While it is often prudent to err on the side of caution, all public health actions should be based on sound science and evidence. The evidence currently available concerning public health risks from body art is insufficient to warrant the creation of a local body of regulations. Santa Cruz County - 79
R14:
Health officials should examine their data to determine the risk of exposing county residents and visitors to infectious disease through unsafe body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. At this point, no evidence has been found linking local infections to body art practices. The County will continue to monitor infection reports.
F83:
The county health services offers free laboratory testing for hepatitis C. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Such services are only available to those with high risk behaviors or clinical illness.
Related Recommendations (4)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R17:
The Board of Supervisors and the Health Services Agency of Santa Cruz County should be commended for establishing the program to provide free hepatitis antibody testing. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. - 80 Santa Cruz County The County appreciates the Grand Jury’s commendation and notes that free hepatitis antibody testing is available to persons at immediate risk – e.g., needle- sharing.
F84:
Local health officials said that it is hard to get the data to show that there are hazards. It is hard to relate the reported infections directly back to tattooing or piercing and hard to link them one way or the other. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (8)
R2:
Health officials should consider other options for collecting information about rogue body artists. County of Santa Cruz, Health Services Agency, “Essential Public Health Reporting Guidelines.” - 76 Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented as part of the activities of the Consumer Protection section of Environmental Health.
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R8:
The Health Services Agency should require all health practitioners to report body art related infection. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Current regulations require medical practitioners to report all unusual diseases, which would include body art related infections.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R13:
If the health community of Santa Cruz cannot provide the scientific certainty that regulations will not prevent the transmission of infectious deadly disease, it would be prudent for public health agents to err on the side of caution. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While it is often prudent to err on the side of caution, all public health actions should be based on sound science and evidence. The evidence currently available concerning public health risks from body art is insufficient to warrant the creation of a local body of regulations. Santa Cruz County - 79
R14:
Health officials should examine their data to determine the risk of exposing county residents and visitors to infectious disease through unsafe body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. At this point, no evidence has been found linking local infections to body art practices. The County will continue to monitor infection reports.
R18:
The Board of Supervisors should commend the individuals and groups responsible for producing educational pamphlets informing the public about the health effects and safety risks inherent in body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F85:
Getting statistics is difficult so local health departments rely on certain venues of research and knowledge above and beyond their level of expertise. One of those channels of information is the California Conference of Local Health Officers (CCLHO); others are very specialized units in Sacramento within the Department of Health Services. Local health officials look to these expert entities for guidance. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
The Board of Supervisors should commend the individuals and groups responsible for producing educational pamphlets informing the public about the health effects and safety risks inherent in body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F86:
According to one local health official, the long incubation period is part of the problem of tracking. Santa Cruz County - 69 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F87:
The state is developing a form for reporting the hepatitis C virus. Current state regulations require public health to report only acute hepatitis B. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. Cases of hepatitis A, B, C, D and other acute types of hepatitis are reportable.
F88:
The European Commission of the Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, reviewing the risks and health effects of body art, said that it is very likely that a great number of skin reactions related to body piercing and tattooing go unreported.58 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. Specific data is unknown, but agrees with the supposition.
Related Recommendations (5)
R4:
Public health agencies should not limit health and safety regulations to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. They should expand the parameters of these regulations to include ear piercing as well as branding, scarification and any other body modification that might include an invasive procedure. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, no significant public health problems relating to these types of procedures have been demonstrated. However, the Health Services Agency will continue to monitor reports of acute or clustered infection in case such occurrences can be traced to local body art practices. In addition, the County will comply when State regulations are promulgated.
R7:
Body art practitioners should be required to report needle sticks just as any other health practitioner does. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The requirement to report needle sticks or any kind of work related exposure to injurious or infectious agents is mandated by state and federal OSHA requirements.
R9:
As the U.C. Davis fatality sadly brought to light, AB 186 requires amending. The Board of Supervisors should petition the state legislature to amend AB 186 to require body artists to screen for pre-existing medical conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. In general, the Health Services Agency believes that body art practitioners do not have the medical skill and information to effectively screen for pre-existing medical conditions. However, HSA encourages practitioners to ask questions about any pre-existing conditions that require anti-biotic medications.
R13:
If the health community of Santa Cruz cannot provide the scientific certainty that regulations will not prevent the transmission of infectious deadly disease, it would be prudent for public health agents to err on the side of caution. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While it is often prudent to err on the side of caution, all public health actions should be based on sound science and evidence. The evidence currently available concerning public health risks from body art is insufficient to warrant the creation of a local body of regulations. Santa Cruz County - 79
R14:
Health officials should examine their data to determine the risk of exposing county residents and visitors to infectious disease through unsafe body art practices. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. At this point, no evidence has been found linking local infections to body art practices. The County will continue to monitor infection reports.
F89:
In the 2003 “State of the County’s Health” presentation, the County Health Officer concluded: • Infectious diseases will likely become a greater threat in the years ahead. Among increases in disease, hepatitis A, B, and C were noted. • Population dynamics and life style choices may signal worsening of the county’s health status in the years ahead unless greater efforts are made to prevent disease and improve access to health care. • Health system reform is imperative but not likely without more visible alarms. • Improvement in our local system of health care through greater cooperation and marshalling of existing resources. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. We have improved our local system of health care, as demonstrated by the successful implementation of the Healthy Kids program.
F90:
The California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health (CCDEH) conducted an e-mail survey asking all Environmental Health agencies in the state to respond to four questions. World Health Organization and the University of Regensburg, European Commission: “Review of Risks and Health Effects from Tattoos, Body Piercing, and Related Practices”. May 2003. - 70 Santa Cruz County A. Only 32 counties of 58 California counties complied.59 • California law requires body art practitioners to register and pay a registration fee. • Twenty-four of the responding counties regulate body art practitioners; eight counties do not. • Of the 24 counties regulating body art practitioners and/or facilities: a) Thirteen do not inspect these facilities. b) Seven inspect once a year. c) One inspects four times a year. d) Three inspect only upon receiving a complaint. B. The survey also asked if the counties had a local ordinance. • Twenty-four counties (of the 32 respondents) have no local ordinance and are waiting for the state to implement AB 186. • Six jurisdictions have local ordinances: Pasadena and Long Beach (city ordinances); Kings, Orange, Yolo and Siskiyou Counties (tattoo ordinances only). • Four other counties are currently considering proposing a local ordinance. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F91:
The Grand Jury sent an e-mail questionnaire to the counties and cities that either have a local ordinance or are considering one. It found: • All charge a one-time registration fee (between $25 and $50). • Orange County charges a $220 “health service fee” for tattoo and permanent cosmetics shops. • All counties said they plan to use the CCLHO model program although one county suggested it would tailor it to suit its local needs. Another county will use the proposed model program with the guidance of its county health officer. • “Low priority” and “lack of follow through” are the most common responses to a question regarding the delay in the state health department regulations. • Most county EH departments welcome the input of body art professionals in drafting their ordinance or in augmenting the state regulations. The counties considering local ordinances have met with their local body art practitioners. California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health, Tattoo and Bodypiercing [sic] Survey Results, 10 September 2003. Santa Cruz County - 71 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F92:
It has been five years since the final draft of the Sanitation, Sterilization and Safety Standards were submitted to the California Department of Health Services. Local health officials report: • The status of implementing the standards mandated by AB 186 is not encouraging. It is a very low priority on the state level. • Establishing a set of statewide regulations would probably take another two years at least. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (5)
R6:
Health officials should compare the proposed body art health regulations and standards with those used to regulate non-invasive procedures at hair and nail salons. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. Environmental Health Services compared the two sets of regulations and standards in March 2004.
R11:
When the body art industry becomes more regulated, either through state regulations or local ordinances, educational and training standards need to be added to existing legislation that focuses on health and safety standards. Local health agencies should require body art practitioner’s education and training as suggested by OSHA and the American Red Cross, thus discouraging inexperienced, untrained “scratchers”. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The Health Services Agency believes that the County’s present program of providing education and information to the industry meets the public health and safety needs of the local community.
R15:
Santa Cruz County health officials should prove their commitment to protect the health and safety of its residents and visitors by joining with other county’s health officials to demand that the California Department of Health Services adopt the Sterilization, Sanitation and Safety standards as mandated by AB 186. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. The County, through the statewide association of Environmental Health Agency Directors, is working with State on statewide standards.
R16:
Local government should fill the void when the State of California fails to protect the health and safety of its residents. Because the California Department of Health Services has not followed the directives of AB 186, and the state local health officers agency (CCLHO) offered the county health agencies the option to adopt a local ordinance, Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency and Environmental Health should propose to the Board of Supervisors a draft ordinance which would include all the necessary elements to protect the public health. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The Consumer Protection section of Environmental Health will continue to work with the local body art industry to promote safe practices. In addition, the County will continue to monitor reports of diseases related to body art to determine whether a scientific basis exists to warrant the creation of a local ordinance.
R19:
The Board of Supervisors and the Health Services Agency should commend the body art practitioners of Santa Cruz County who, in absence of a state mandate, voluntarily adhere to suggested health and safety standards to protect themselves and their clients. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County concurs with the Grand Jury’s commendation of practitioners who comply with health and safety standards.
F93:
Local health officials disagree on whether Santa Cruz County should follow the lead of the more proactive counties or localities. • Some health officials said that they should take a strong look at the data for any significant documentation that there is a public health threat. If there were not, they would wait for the state and hope practitioners are doing enough to protect themselves and their clients. If something came up, they say that is the time to do something. • Another local health official said some standards should be implemented because it is only a matter of time before a problem occurs. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
Health officials should meet with body art professionals to enlist their help in drafting a local ordinance. The Grand Jury is not proposing the Board of Supervisors and health officials adopt onerous regulations, certainly no more than those that reputable and conscientious body art practitioners would eagerly suggest if given the opportunity. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, the Health Services Agency does not recommend development of a local ordinance. However, HSA will continue to meet with body art professionals about appropriate health and safety standards and ways that the industry could encourage compliance with these standards. Santa Cruz County - 77
R11:
When the body art industry becomes more regulated, either through state regulations or local ordinances, educational and training standards need to be added to existing legislation that focuses on health and safety standards. Local health agencies should require body art practitioner’s education and training as suggested by OSHA and the American Red Cross, thus discouraging inexperienced, untrained “scratchers”. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. The Health Services Agency believes that the County’s present program of providing education and information to the industry meets the public health and safety needs of the local community.
R16:
Local government should fill the void when the State of California fails to protect the health and safety of its residents. Because the California Department of Health Services has not followed the directives of AB 186, and the state local health officers agency (CCLHO) offered the county health agencies the option to adopt a local ordinance, Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency and Environmental Health should propose to the Board of Supervisors a draft ordinance which would include all the necessary elements to protect the public health. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The Consumer Protection section of Environmental Health will continue to work with the local body art industry to promote safe practices. In addition, the County will continue to monitor reports of diseases related to body art to determine whether a scientific basis exists to warrant the creation of a local ordinance.
F94:
Santa Cruz health officials agree that a local interest or local advocacy group supporting the need for a local ordinance in the absence of state regulations might motivate the county to consider a local ordinance. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
Health officials should meet with body art professionals to enlist their help in drafting a local ordinance. The Grand Jury is not proposing the Board of Supervisors and health officials adopt onerous regulations, certainly no more than those that reputable and conscientious body art practitioners would eagerly suggest if given the opportunity. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, the Health Services Agency does not recommend development of a local ordinance. However, HSA will continue to meet with body art professionals about appropriate health and safety standards and ways that the industry could encourage compliance with these standards. Santa Cruz County - 77
R16:
Local government should fill the void when the State of California fails to protect the health and safety of its residents. Because the California Department of Health Services has not followed the directives of AB 186, and the state local health officers agency (CCLHO) offered the county health agencies the option to adopt a local ordinance, Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency and Environmental Health should propose to the Board of Supervisors a draft ordinance which would include all the necessary elements to protect the public health. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The Consumer Protection section of Environmental Health will continue to work with the local body art industry to promote safe practices. In addition, the County will continue to monitor reports of diseases related to body art to determine whether a scientific basis exists to warrant the creation of a local ordinance.
F95:
If a local ordinance were drafted, health officials said they would meet with local professional body artists. Health officials said practitioners know more about the body art industry. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
Health officials should meet with body art professionals to enlist their help in drafting a local ordinance. The Grand Jury is not proposing the Board of Supervisors and health officials adopt onerous regulations, certainly no more than those that reputable and conscientious body art practitioners would eagerly suggest if given the opportunity. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This recommendation will not be implemented. At this time, the Health Services Agency does not recommend development of a local ordinance. However, HSA will continue to meet with body art professionals about appropriate health and safety standards and ways that the industry could encourage compliance with these standards. Santa Cruz County - 77
R16:
Local government should fill the void when the State of California fails to protect the health and safety of its residents. Because the California Department of Health Services has not followed the directives of AB 186, and the state local health officers agency (CCLHO) offered the county health agencies the option to adopt a local ordinance, Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency and Environmental Health should propose to the Board of Supervisors a draft ordinance which would include all the necessary elements to protect the public health. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The Consumer Protection section of Environmental Health will continue to work with the local body art industry to promote safe practices. In addition, the County will continue to monitor reports of diseases related to body art to determine whether a scientific basis exists to warrant the creation of a local ordinance.
F96:
According to one local health official, if Santa Cruz County decided to go ahead with a local ordinance, it could happen in two or three months. Local health officials would: - 72 Santa Cruz County • Gather documentation that a significant health risk does exist. • Present the documentation to the Board of Supervisors with a
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
Local government should fill the void when the State of California fails to protect the health and safety of its residents. Because the California Department of Health Services has not followed the directives of AB 186, and the state local health officers agency (CCLHO) offered the county health agencies the option to adopt a local ordinance, Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency and Environmental Health should propose to the Board of Supervisors a draft ordinance which would include all the necessary elements to protect the public health. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The Consumer Protection section of Environmental Health will continue to work with the local body art industry to promote safe practices. In addition, the County will continue to monitor reports of diseases related to body art to determine whether a scientific basis exists to warrant the creation of a local ordinance.
F97:
Cost should not be a factor.60 According to health officials, a reasonable annual inspection fee would cover costs and not be too much of an impact on body art businesses. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F98:
Each county evaluates the health and safety risks and their health officer then designates the risks significant enough to move forward and adopt a local ordinance. Some counties, compelled by local advocacy groups, have chosen to draft their own local ordinances. In one case, a board member suggested the county adopt a local ordinance. In other cases, a citizen’s group, or medical community, or even the body art practitioners motivated the county to proceed with a local ordinance. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County agrees with this finding as to the general process of implementing a local ordinance. The County has no independent information about processes followed by other counties or communities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
Local government should fill the void when the State of California fails to protect the health and safety of its residents. Because the California Department of Health Services has not followed the directives of AB 186, and the state local health officers agency (CCLHO) offered the county health agencies the option to adopt a local ordinance, Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency and Environmental Health should propose to the Board of Supervisors a draft ordinance which would include all the necessary elements to protect the public health. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. The Consumer Protection section of Environmental Health will continue to work with the local body art industry to promote safe practices. In addition, the County will continue to monitor reports of diseases related to body art to determine whether a scientific basis exists to warrant the creation of a local ordinance.
F99:
A nearby county is moving forward with a local ordinance because it has determined that until the state acts, the public should have some assurance that they will have a safe experience in the application of body art. • Currently, this county registers both the proprietors of these studios and the individual body art operators for a fee of $25. • It has registered 40 practitioners. • The inspection fee will cover the cost of regular annual inspections of these facilities and practitioners’ work areas. • This county’s body art ordinance would include requirements for all piercing, body piercing as well as “ear piercing only” facilities. California Health and Safety Code 119303 HS 4 (b) allows a county to charge body art facilities an additional amount if necessary to cover the cost of registering and inspecting.” Santa Cruz County - 73 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F100:
One San Francisco Bay Area county has a population size similar to Santa Cruz County and a similar number of registered body art practitioners. At present, this county does not have its own regulations but if the state does not come through soon, it said it will consider implementing a local ordinance. • Like Santa Cruz County, it charges a one-time $50 registration fee and does not inspect body art facilities. • It will employ the CCLHO model program. • It plans to confer with body art industry representatives to help draft its ordinance. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The Board does not know to which county the Grand Jury is referring. Conclusions
Findings & Recommendations
31 findings
F1:
County landfills are reaching maximum capacity, requiring that new sites be identified, licensed and built. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County and the cities of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Scotts Valley and Capitola have been jointly conducting a solid waste facilities siting study for the last three and a half years under the umbrella of the Integrated Waste Management Local Task Force. The purpose of this study is to locate potential sites for new landfills, Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 45 transfer stations and other waste management facilities to replace our aging landfills. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. The City of Watsonville’s landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 15 years.
F2:
It takes approximately ten years to get a permit for a new landfill. Response: Santa Cruz City Council DISAGREES. Permitting time is now exceeding fifteen years in many cases. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.
F3:
The average lifespan of California landfills is about 15 years. Response: Santa Cruz City Council DISAGREES. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) Disposal Site database shows that most active landfills have significantly more than fifteen years life. Around 1992, when Federal Regulation “Subtitle D” came into effect, many smaller landfills could not reach compliance and closed. This resulted in fewer landfills, but left larger ones with more capacity and longer site life. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. County staff contacted the California Integrated Waste Management Board to determine the accuracy of this finding, and CIWMB was unable to provide us with the average life of all California landfills. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville has no data regarding average lifespans of California landfills.
F4:
The remaining lifespan for the City of Santa Cruz’s landfill (Dimeo Lane) is about 34 years, if carefully used. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. - 46 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County
F5:
The remaining lifespan of the Santa Cruz County landfill (Buena Vista) is about 15 years. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F6:
Santa Cruz County Code 7.20.110 states that garbage can be held no longer than seven days. Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. The actual language states, “Garbage containers on all premises shall be emptied and garbage shall be collected and properly disposed of not less than once a week.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville has no data regarding average lifespans of California landfills.
F7:
The county contracts with a private company for its garbage and recycling pickup. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F8:
The cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville provide their own garbage and recycling trucks and pickup. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.
F9:
Currently the county has no mandatory garbage or recycling service in the unincorporated areas. Garbage pickup is mandatory in all four of the county’s incorporated areas. Separate garbage and recycling containers are distributed in the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville. Using the recycling containers is optional. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Unincorporated county residents who elect to use the franchised collection services offered by Waste Management also receive garbage, recycling and yardwaste Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 47 containers. Unincorporated County residents may also elect to subscribe to lower cost recycling and/or yardwaste collection service. This “recycle only” service is intended to support those county residents who strive to generate little or no refuse. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. Agree as to facts relating to the City of Watsonville.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Local recycling agencies should consider the experience of other communities and decide whether mandatory recycling would be beneficial. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. The recommendation has already been implemented. At this time, the City of Santa Cruz does not consider the costs of enforcement of mandatory recycling to be worth any diversion gain it might garner, since our recycling rates continue to increase without it. We will reevaluate at such time as our diversion flatlines, and will look at our waste composition at that time to see what action is warranted to continue toward a zero-waste goal. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The recommendation requires further analysis. The County regularly evaluates recycling and waste management programs in communities across the U.S, Asia and Europe for new and innovative ideas. Many of our current programs are modeled after other successful programs we have evaluated. Mandatory collection has been demonstrated to improve participation and waste diversion. This recommendation will be analyzed as part of the renewal process for the collection franchise with Waste Management in the spring of 2005. Response: City of Watsonville CANNOT RESPOND. - 60 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Watsonville is researching mandatory recycling at this time.
F10:
Approximately 65 percent of residents in the unincorporated areas of the county use garbage and recycling curbside pickup. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F11:
Approximately 55 percent of San Lorenzo Valley residents use curbside pickup. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F12:
Mandatory garbage and recycling pickup in the unincorporated area of the county could result in less illegal dumping and a reduced amount of recyclable materials in the landfill, some officials said. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Local recycling agencies should consider the experience of other communities and decide whether mandatory recycling would be beneficial. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. The recommendation has already been implemented. At this time, the City of Santa Cruz does not consider the costs of enforcement of mandatory recycling to be worth any diversion gain it might garner, since our recycling rates continue to increase without it. We will reevaluate at such time as our diversion flatlines, and will look at our waste composition at that time to see what action is warranted to continue toward a zero-waste goal. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. The recommendation requires further analysis. The County regularly evaluates recycling and waste management programs in communities across the U.S, Asia and Europe for new and innovative ideas. Many of our current programs are modeled after other successful programs we have evaluated. Mandatory collection has been demonstrated to improve participation and waste diversion. This recommendation will be analyzed as part of the renewal process for the collection franchise with Waste Management in the spring of 2005. Response: City of Watsonville CANNOT RESPOND. - 60 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Watsonville is researching mandatory recycling at this time.
R5:
Cardboard and office paper are the focus when landfills ban commercial waste. These are high dollar items for re-sale. To enforce these bans, landfill operators should: • Refuse loads of cardboard and office paper. • Impose fines on haulers of cardboard and office paper. • Track down offending customers and fine them. • Place a significant amount of responsibility on haulers to force customers to comply. Response: Santa Cruz City Council DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented. Our Resource Recovery Facility staff currently checks loads at the gate, at the public tipping area, and at the landfill face, and if large amounts of any type of recyclable material are seen, they are directed to the appropriate off-loading area to try to capture those materials. Our collection and public education staff also contact customers and encourage them to use recycling containers for cardboard, paper, or containers when a large amount of those items are seen in the refuse containers. Our refuse rate structure encourages reduction in garbage volumes, and recycling containers and collection is included for no extra charge. At this time, we do not feel that the additional staff time and costs of a landfill ban on cardboard and paper are warranted. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Department of Public Works will be proposing future ordinance changes for Board considerationthat would ban specific recyclable items from the landfill and propose provisions for enforcement. Potential items to be considered for bans include cardboard, yardwaste, woodwaste, scrap metal, and concrete. The department anticipates preparation of proposed ordinance changes will occur in spring 2005, after all the upgrades and improvements to our recycling and public service facilities are completed. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. This has been partially implemented. The City owns and operates the solid waste collection franchise and the city landfill. As such, the City is able to control the collection and disposal of these two materials. City garbage truck drivers deliver Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 61 any drop box bearing more than 50% recyclable material (including cardboard and paper) to the City Materials Recovery Facility for sorting. The City encourages diversion of recyclable materials by collecting them at no cost. In general, this arrangement has worked very well, as is evident from the City’s very impressive 72% diversion rates for 2001 and 2002. Occasionally, the City has had to use fines to correct chronic contamination problems in cardboard containers. The city has issued fines as high as $565 per container for contamination of cardboard with trash.
F13:
If all recyclable materials were recycled, officials say that the Buena Vista landfill could have at least a 30 percent additional reduction in material. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F14:
Some recycling officials said that Buena Vista landfill workers need a better understanding of California’s recycling laws (AB 939 and the appropriate California Public Resources Code sections) in order to inform customers who arrive at the landfill with recyclable materials. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. Regular staff meetings are held with all landfill and transfer station staff involved with the public to review and discuss recycling policies, diversion programs and implementation of AB 939 mandated programs. Numerous flyers and informational brochures are produced and distributed by landfill and transfer station staff explaining in greater detail about the various recycling and waste diversion programs available to the public. All landfill and transfer station managers and supervisors are regularly sent to seminars conducted by peer professional organizations in the solid waste and recycling field to keep them up-to-date on the most current regulations, operational practices and recycling programs. This information is regularly disseminated to all operational staff. Most landfill and - 48 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County transfer station supervisors and managers have received operational certification through our professional peer organization, which requires very specific knowledge of recycling and waste diversion practices, policies and regulations. Administrative staff responsible for public education regularly provides direct outreach to public users of our facilities, both at the facilities and through direct outreach conducted at businesses and residences.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County of Santa Cruz should examine its operation of the Buena Vista landfill. Close monitoring and enforcement of recycling practices could reduce the amount of recyclables entering the landfill. This could include positive incentives for proper disposal and citations for improper disposal of recyclables. Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 57 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has already been implemented. Ongoing evaluations of landfill practices have occurred on a regular basis over the last 15 years and program changes or new programs are implemented frequently. We have been providing rate incentives for over 15 years to customers who appropriately separate specific recyclable commodities. In order to address those landfill users who still elect not to participate in the wide variety of recycling opportunities we provide, we are preparing to implement an extensive sorting operation for construction and commercial wastes to further reduce recyclables from entering the landfill. This program will also include physical site improvements to make recycling easier and more convenient for the public. In support of this program, we will be proposing future ordinance changes that would also ban specific recyclable items from the landfill, including provisions for enforcement.
F15:
Some people think recycling is free but because of the expenses involved it is not. Volume is the key to making a profit in recycling: the greater the volume, the greater the profit. Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. We agree that recycling is not free. If you lose a nickel per unit on each item manufactured, selling more units will not recoup that loss. Volume has less to do with profit than market price. Volume helps if one is focused on one material type and the market price is reasonable. However, municipalities collect several items as a public service, not as a profit-making venture. The cost of all those items affect the bottom line, and the City does not just stop collecting unprofitable items, as a for-profit private recycler could do. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Recycling is not free, but it typically has a much lower cost than disposal. Revenues generated through sales of recyclable materials do not typically cover the expense associated with collection, sorting and marketing of these materials. While increased volume of some material may also increase revenues, some recyclable materials have very low market values and can have a detrimental effect on overall recycling revenues. Overall, recycling markets have been at an all time low for the last three years and no profits are being made at this time.The County has asked the state legislature to consider mandating more recycled material content in consumer products to increase this market. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. The economics of recycling depend on more than just volume. Other factors such as collection and processing efficiency, material prices, etc. affect recycling economics.
F16:
The City of Santa Cruz routinely uses the same customers for its sale of recyclable materials. The City of Watsonville aggressively negotiates with brokers using high dollar items (white paper and cardboard) to obtain the best price. Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 49 Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. Although the City of Santa Cruz often uses the same buyers, the Recycling Center Supervisor shops around for the best market price. Using this best price, he is often able to leverage the usual buyers into matching the best currently offered price. Having long-term relationships with buyers can also help ensure that during the low-market periods, the buyers will still accept our materials and give us their best price given low demand. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. Agree as to the facts relating to Watsonville.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Local recycling entities should take a regional approach to obtain countywide contracts in order to combine and sell together each category of recycled materials to the highest bidder. They should total the volume at the various locations, rather than collect the material at a central station. Response: Santa Cruz City Council DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented across all materials. Programs vary by types of materials collected, mix of materials collected, type of processing, and storage space. This impacts the potential buyers and transportation schedules, which may make countywide contracts infeasible. City of Santa Cruz staff has held conversations in the past with other regional recyclers on this topic and will continue to explore this option for materials where it appears to have a financial benefit. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. From the County’s perspective, this recommendation has been implemented. The County and Cities of Scotts Valley and Capitola all utilize the collection and recycling services of a private hauler, Waste Management. Waste Management, as a private, for-profit entity, has its own internal process for preparing and marketing materials. Waste Management is the largest recycling collector in North America and has well-developed markets for all collected materials, including most Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 59 of the low value commodities that are hard to market. Waste Management collects and co-markets all recyclable materials collected by these county jurisdictions as well as jurisdictions within Monterey County at their combined processing facility in Castroville. In turn, recyclables from Waste Management’s many operations across North America are combined for mass marketing to end users all over the world in order to achieve the highest and most stable market values. The Cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville collect and process their recyclables using city staff and facilities. Both cities could elect to approach Waste Management to work out details for combined marketing of their recyclables. Waste Management has informed the County that they have provided combined marketing service for other municipalities across the country. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Watsonville uses an aggressive marketing strategy to obtain the highest price for its recycled materials. If the other agencies were willing to pursue this technique, Watsonville would be open to joining a regional marketing coalition.
F17:
Each recycling entity that collects materials usually makes its own arrangements to sell its products to companies outside of the county. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. Agree as to facts as they relate to Watsonville. However, Watsonville has also sold products to companies within Santa Cruz County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Local recycling entities should take a regional approach to obtain countywide contracts in order to combine and sell together each category of recycled materials to the highest bidder. They should total the volume at the various locations, rather than collect the material at a central station. Response: Santa Cruz City Council DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented across all materials. Programs vary by types of materials collected, mix of materials collected, type of processing, and storage space. This impacts the potential buyers and transportation schedules, which may make countywide contracts infeasible. City of Santa Cruz staff has held conversations in the past with other regional recyclers on this topic and will continue to explore this option for materials where it appears to have a financial benefit. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. From the County’s perspective, this recommendation has been implemented. The County and Cities of Scotts Valley and Capitola all utilize the collection and recycling services of a private hauler, Waste Management. Waste Management, as a private, for-profit entity, has its own internal process for preparing and marketing materials. Waste Management is the largest recycling collector in North America and has well-developed markets for all collected materials, including most Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 59 of the low value commodities that are hard to market. Waste Management collects and co-markets all recyclable materials collected by these county jurisdictions as well as jurisdictions within Monterey County at their combined processing facility in Castroville. In turn, recyclables from Waste Management’s many operations across North America are combined for mass marketing to end users all over the world in order to achieve the highest and most stable market values. The Cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville collect and process their recyclables using city staff and facilities. Both cities could elect to approach Waste Management to work out details for combined marketing of their recyclables. Waste Management has informed the County that they have provided combined marketing service for other municipalities across the country. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation has not yet been implemented. Watsonville uses an aggressive marketing strategy to obtain the highest price for its recycled materials. If the other agencies were willing to pursue this technique, Watsonville would be open to joining a regional marketing coalition.
F18:
The County of Santa Cruz's Ben Lomond Transfer Station has a limited area to collect recycling materials. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The Ben Lomond Transfer Station has adequate area to collect all the basic materials collected through the curbside collection program as well as self-hauled woodwaste, yardwaste, mattresses, tires, household hazardous waste and electronic waste. However, due to limits on large open areas for processing, the transfer station is not able to store large volumes of scrap metal for on-site processing. This forces the County to haul small loads to end markets which reduces the net revenues because of the increased cost of transportation. The Ben Lomond Transfer Station also lacks adequate large open space for collection and processing of concrete and asphalt materials. These items are directed to the Buena Vista Site for processing.
F19:
Interactions among various coordinators of the various recycling organizations within the county are informal. - 50 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. We agree that there is no formal system in place for recycling coordinators within the County to communicate on marketing of recyclable materials. However, there are several State and national organizations that all County entities belong to, including the National Recycling Coalition and the California Resource Recovery Association. Additionally, State legislation mandates a committee, the Local Task Force and Technical Advisory Committee, that is tasked to review and act on solid waste and recycling issues within the County. All County agencies have membership on this committee and most private and non-profit agencies are also members. Our City of Santa Cruz Waste Reduction Coordinator, who works with outreach and education issues, does work with other County agency peers, in both formal and informal settings. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. While some interactions are informal, there are also formal forums for staff and public discussion of regional recycling issues. The Integrated Waste Management Local Task Force is a formal organization composed of elected officials and their representatives from each of the county and city jurisdictions. The purpose of this task force is to address regional, countywide waste management and recycling issues common to all participating members. The Task Force conducts all its meetings in the public forum. The County and the Cities of Capitola, Watsonville and Scotts Valley are all members of the Central Coast Recycling Media Coalition (CCRMC), which also includes county and city representatives from Monterey and San Benito counties. The CCRMC was formed under a Memorandum of Understanding between all the participating agencies and each agency provides funding to the CCRMC for public education. The CCRMC works specifically on joint public outreach efforts for recycling and litter reduction across the tri-county region. The County and the cities of Scotts Valley and Capitola are jointly funding resource conservation education in the public schools. This successful program provides information on recycling and resource conservation as part of the classroom curriculum and provides the necessary recycling infrastructure to support school recycling and waste diversion activities. This very successful program has received statewide awards and is supported by the County Office of Education. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 51
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The county, the cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and other local agencies involved in recycling should be more cooperative among themselves. For maximum public exposure and fiscal efficiency, they should coordinate printed recycling information and media coverage. Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented across all printed materials and media coverage. Recycling programs vary by community and communities target different problems, populations, opportunities, and safety and environmental issues that are unique to that community. The City of Santa Cruz participates with other agencies within the region on coordinated outreach for some types of media (especially regional media such as TV) and some public events. We will continue to do this when it provides a clear benefit to our purpose and public. A recent example of the importance of clearly designed and distinctive media information was a very serious problem created for the City of Santa Cruz by a TV ad run for the Waste Management operations of the County. The TV ad told “Santa Cruz County customers” that they no longer needed to separate their paper and containers in their blue recycling carts. Many City of Santa Cruz customers saw this ad, and assumed that since they live within the County, they no longer need to separate their recyclables. However, the City has not yet moved to a single-stream sorting system, and we have been experiencing a much greater degree of contamination in loads, resulting in a higher percentage of materials that must be disposed of, and increased staff and equipment costs to hand sort the materials at the recycling center. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. - 58 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County From the County’s perspective, this recommendation has been implemented as described above in responses to findings 19 and 20. In addition, the County would welcome the interest of those cities who have dropped out of these joint programs and elected not to participate to re-initiate their involvement. Programs for joint public outreach efforts already exist, and the County is actively participating with other agencies. The County is also continuing to support countywide outreach efforts through our contract with Ecology Action to promote home composting, prepare recycling guides and participate in community fairs and events across the county. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. Whenever possible, this has been implemented. Where practicable, regional coordination on recycling information does occur. An example is the curbside waste oil program. However, Watsonville has developed a number of recycling programs that are operationally distinct from those in the County and Santa Cruz City. As such, Watsonville has to provide information to their residents that is not applicable to programs in the other areas. An example of this is the City’s fully commingled curbside recycling program, which is based on undivided carts, serviced every-other-week.
F20:
Some recycling officials are concerned about the idea of consolidation recycling activities that involve information and public awareness. They feel the money might not be wisely spent. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The County understands that other jurisdictions have taken this position on certain programs and as such have refused to participate or have dropped out of participating in some multi-jurisdictional recycling or public awareness programs. However, the County has and continues to promote joint efforts to address recycling, waste management and public education efforts as evidenced by our continued participation in those joint programs outlined in our response to finding 19 above. The County believes that joint efforts in this area help create programs that are consistent across the entire county, improve public understanding, and can be more cost effective than individual jurisdictional efforts aimed at the same goal. All of the existing multi-jurisdictional programs have processes to involve each entity in the fiscal decisions of the programs. The level of involvement in program financing and budgeting decisions has always been left up to each participating jurisdiction. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES. The City of Watsonville has such concerns in cases where individual programs differ significantly.
F21:
The City of Santa Cruz has won awards for its public recycling information. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES.
F22:
The county’s informational materials on recycling were criticized as poor and unimaginative. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The County’s public education program is very comprehensive and uses all forms of media to reach the intended audiences. The County has produced directly and indirectly through contract a wide variety of public information items including brochures, TV commercials, radio ads, internet information, hot lines and regular business and residential newsletters. The County has received numerous awards for educational activities such as three “Trash Cutter” awards from the California Integrated Waste Management Board for the 1) Best Public Information Program, - 52 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County 2) Best Schools Program, and 3) Best Creative Partnerships Program. The latter award is in recognition of our efforts to partner with local non-profit agencies for development and implementation of educational outreach for a wide variety of recycling and waste diversion programs. The County has also received an award from the California Resource Recovery Association for “Innovations In Government” in recognition of our Public Schools Resource Conservation Program. The County employs a full-time Public Education Coordinator to oversee all educational activities. By conducting most of our educational efforts with in-house staff or local non-profit agencies, the County is able to provide these services more cost effectively than by using more expensive outside consulting services. As an example, the County directly contracts with local TV stations for production of commercials instead of using an intermediary consultant. The stations produce the commercials with their own professional advertising staff and the County provides editorial direction. This results in professionally produced commercials without the added overhead cost of a consultant, which allows the use of more educational funding for airtime.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The City of Santa Cruz Public Works Department and in particular the Waste Reduction Coordinator should be commended for its excellent work in public awareness through its publications and media coverage. It should be commended for winning the 2004 Award of Excellence in Writing for the statewide competition conducted by the California Public Information Officials (CAPIO). Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. The recommendation has already been implemented.
F23:
Some recycling groups in the county believe they do not get adequate exposure to inform the public of proper recycling procedures and the availability of local resources. Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. There is a wealth of advertising and public outreach in this County. Informing the public about recycling is not easy due to differences in programs and the marketability of some products, such as plastics marked as recyclable even though no practical market exists. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The County has funded and worked with a local non-profit, Ecology Action, for over 15 years to produce the only comprehensive guides available for local recycling opportunities. The County produces, regularly updates, and distributes two guides: the “Where to Recycle Guide” for residential customers and the “Business Recycling Guide” for local businesses. Four newsletters are sent each year to unincorporated County residents, two to residential customers and two to all County businesses focusing on business recycling issues. These newsletters contain information and articles on the latest recycling services, changes in local and state regulations, and other current waste management issues. The County’s refuse and recycling collection franchisee, Waste Management, also produces informational brochures for their residential and commercial customers that list alternative recycling resources in the county. The County also maintains a Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 53 recycling “hotline” with up-to-date local information on recycling opportunities throughout the entire County. The County also provides significant funding and outreach support to two local non-profit recyclers, the California Grey Bears and the Valley Women’s Club. The County also employs a full time Commercial Waste Reduction Coordinator who works directly with businesses to reduce wastes. The role of this position is to assist and coordinate recycling and waste diversion service between the businesses and the various local recycling service providers. We actively promote all the known recycling service providers in the county. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.
F24:
Ecology Action is a Santa Cruz based non-profit informational organization that uses grants from federal, state and county governments to promote recycling. Ecology Action works with the county on some recycling projects. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F25:
Some cities and counties get state and federal grants to run special recycling programs. Examples are programs to recycle motor oil and batteries. Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. Some funding is available to assist in funding programs such as motor oil collection, however, the entire cost of the programs typically are not covered (with the exception of initial funding for innovative pilot projects). Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County agrees with this finding but is not aware of any federal or state grants available for recycling batteries. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
The Valley Women’s Club should be commended for using recycling revenues to finance its charitable services to the community. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The Board of Supervisors shares the Grand Jury’s appreciation of the Valley Women’s Club’s use of recycling revenues to fund its charitable services to the community.
R8:
The California Grey Bears should be commended for its service to the seniors of Santa Cruz County and for using recycling as one means to raise money. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The Board of Supervisors shares the Grand Jury’s appreciation of the California Grey Bears for their service to seniors and for their recycling efforts.
F26:
As of 2003, 22 of the 58 counties in California have met the 50 percent solid waste diversion requirement specified by AB 939.4 In 2001, Santa Cruz County had a 53 percent diversion rate. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Nevada County Grand Jury Report 2002-03. - 54 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The County of Santa Cruz should be commended for exceeding the state mandate of 50 percent solid waste diversion in 2001. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors - 62 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County The Board of Supervisors appreciates the Grand Jury’s acknowledgement of the efforts of the Department of Public Works and the residents of Santa Cruz County to meet this mandate.
F27:
Each day 2.5 million glass bottles are discarded in landfills in California. Commercial customers, such as restaurants and apartment complexes, are large users and therefore large contributors to the problem in California. Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. The last full statewide waste characterization study available from the CIWMB was done in 1999. It estimates that about 2.8% of the waste stream is glass, or about 1.07 million tons (although this figure includes non-recyclable glass). It is not clear to us that there is a logical basis for the assumption that commercial customers send a larger proportional share of glass to the landfill rather than recycling it. Many of the restaurants and apartment complexes in the City of Santa Cruz do participate in glass recycling. In our 1998 City landfill disposal characterization study, the commercial samples showed 2% glass bottles and containers, and the residential samples 2.1%. (It would be useful if the Grand Jury cited the source of their statistics.) Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. This is a very generalized statement. In the unincorporated County, we have very good participation in bottle recycling both at businesses and apartment complexes. Our Business Waste Reduction Coordinator also works with a network of dedicated recycling advocates at most apartment complexes to disseminate recycling information, track waste diversion progress and expand recycling services. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville has no statewide data of this nature.
F28:
Several communities across the U.S. have adopted programs of mandatory recycling with excellent results. (This does not include mandatory garbage pick- up). An example is San Diego where mandatory separation saw participation jump from 30-40% up to 80-90%. They used a coordinated approach of public awareness, slogans, media press releases, press conferences and special events to enlist public understanding of the advantages of recycling. Response: Santa Cruz City Council DISAGREES. While some cities in the nation may have mandatory recycling, the City of San Diego is not one of them. The reference may refer to that program changing from source-separated recycling collection to its new single-stream collection. A major program change would include all those outreach aspects. With the current levels of voluntary participation, most communities see little need to move to mandatory recycling. There is no proof that mandatory recycling would increase recycling Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County - 55 levels by the amounts indicated. There are also additional questions about how enforcement can be done and the increased program cost to fund enforcement. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville has not confirmed the features and performance of such programs in other jurisdictions.
F29:
The key element of mandatory recycling is to make participation “convenient.” Response: Santa Cruz City Council PARTIALLY AGREES. Convenience is a key component to the success of all recycling programs, but may not be the most important factor to the success of mandatory recycling. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. The City of Watsonville believes that convenience is a key factor in voluntary programs as well.
F30:
Other communities have seen increased cooperation by use of economic incentives along with comprehensive education and promotion activities. Although the word “mandatory” initially raises concerns, communities have found little need for it. With convenient home and commercial pick up service, plus vigorous inspection at the landfill entrance for drive up loads, people are more inclined to recycle willingly. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. The City of Watsonville has not confirmed the features and performance of such programs in other jurisdictions.
F31:
Enforcement programs vary tremendously throughout North America. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. - 56 Recycling Programs in Santa Cruz County Response: City of Watsonville AGREES. Conclusions
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
The facility is well managed by its staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. - 20 Santa Cruz County Jails Review
F2:
The staff was very professional.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. - 20 Santa Cruz County Jails Review
F3:
Staff appeared well organized and well versed in operational policies, rules and procedures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. - 20 Santa Cruz County Jails Review
F4:
The hole in the kitchen pantry wall near the baseboard could allow access by small animals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The hole in the baseboard wall in the kitchen pantry should be repaired. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented by the Sheriff’s Office; the hole has been repaired.
F5:
The Main Jail is significantly overcrowded. For more information, see the Grand Jury report “Issues Contributing to the Overcrowding in the Santa Cruz County Main Jail.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
concerning Overcrowding in the Main Jail. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 19 The Sheriff implemented a Jail Overcrowding Committee on July 24, 2004. The Committee will identify systemic problems contributing to jail overcrowding and recommend modifications that can be accomplished without unreasonably compromising public safety. The committee hopes to enact those recommendations in 2005. 2. Software for the jail computer system should be updated. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The recommendation is being implemented. Detention staff is currently working with the Information Services Department to develop a Detention Management System designed to meet jail needs. The accounting component of the system is now being implemented. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES. The recommendation has not yet been fully implemented. Corrections staff is working with the Sheriff’s Technical staff and the County Information Services Department to develop a DMS (Detention Management System) that will better meet jail needs. Though the accounting component of the system is now being implemented, the full system is at least two years away from being operational. 3. The hole in the baseboard wall in the kitchen pantry should be repaired. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented by the Sheriff’s Office; the hole has been repaired. 4. Jail officials should verify that the plastic “boats” used for some prisoners’ beds to ensure they meet Board of Corrections requirement. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented as described above in the response to
F6:
The jail appears to not be in compliance with the Board of Corrections’ regulations because it has beds that are not 12 inches above the floor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Jail officials should verify that the plastic “boats” used for some prisoners’ beds to ensure they meet Board of Corrections requirement. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented as described above in the response to
F7:
An updated computer data management system could increase the jail’s efficiency.
F8:
Total staffing level at both facilities on the Rountree site is seven staff members during the day and six at night. Conclusions 1. Rountree is a well run facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Rountree should continue to offer its current programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES.
F9:
The booking process includes: • Detoxification (if needed) with restraint (if needed). • Fingerprinting and photo. • Cataloging and retention of personal effects. • A visual "strip" search for weapons and drugs. • Showering and decontamination. • Issuing of jail clothing. • A health screening by deputies.
F10:
After booking, the housing requirement for each individual is determined by classification according to stipulated criteria: • Criminal sophistication. • Gang affiliation. • Gender, transgender. • Age. • Physical, medical and mental state. • Risk of violence -- from others, to others or to self. • Nature of charge(s). • Potential for escape.
F11:
Staff said that experience, skill and judgment in classifying inmates are crucial to maintaining safety and security. For example: • Members of rival gangs or other hostile factions must be identified and separated. • Homosexuals and transgendered people may be targets for attack. • Individuals charged with physical crimes against children may be targets for attack. • Mentally ill inmates can be perpetrators or targets of violence. • Some inmates are suicidal, or become suicidal once confined.
F12:
Mental state is an assessment based on behavior and observations. Individuals with mental health issues are closely monitored by the mental health, medical and jail staff. Appropriate measures are taken to ensure each inmate’s welfare and safety while incarcerated. Recent budget cuts have resulted in a lower availability of mental health Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 17 services. Services that have been cut include a follow-up outpatient program.
F13:
Since the last Grand Jury report, there have been two deaths in jail: one by suicide and one by other medical causes. Response: The Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. Both deaths in the jail were thoroughly investigated by Sheriff’s detectives and Coroner investigators. The Sheriff’s C.I.T. (Crisis Intervention Team) composed of Correctional, Psychological and Medical staffs, continue to work together to prevent the loss of life in the correctional facilities.
F14:
There have been two escapes since the last Grand Jury report. Both escaped inmates have been apprehended. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. The escapes were due to physical plant weaknesses and a lapse of security in the Laundry room area. After a thorough investigation, the physical plant has been upgraded and the security lapse has been addressed.
F15:
Staff said that the computer system's software is outdated for the jail's current needs. Newer software would allow more comprehensive management reports. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. The Sheriff’s Office is working with I.S.D. (Information Services Department) to create a new DMS (Detention Management System) that will fulfill the future needs of the office and provide comprehensive management reports.
F16:
The kitchen pantry wall has a hole near the baseboard 12 inches long by four inches wide. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. The kitchen pantry hole has been repaired.
F17:
Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented by the Sheriff’s Office due to plastic “boats” not being regulated by the B.O.C. 5. Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. - 20 Santa Cruz County Jails Review Responses Required Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within Santa Cruz County 1, 15, 17 1, 2, 4 90 Days Board of Supervisors (September 30, 2004) Santa Cruz County 1, 13 - 17 1 – 4 90 Days Sheriff (September 30, 2004) Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 21 Rountree Medium Security Facility Findings 1. The Board of Corrections’ rated capacity is 96 with current staffing and a maximum of 110 with additional staffing. As of March 26, 2004, the population was 79 inmates. Response: Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office AGREES. 2. Inmates prepare meals under direct supervision, using a posted menu. 3. The S.A.F.E. program, a drug rehabilitation program, has increased participation in Rountree between July 2003 and March 2004. 4. The sole medical position, a nurse, was eliminated because of budget cuts. Correctional officers now dispense medication. Rountree inmates are transported to the Main Jail for medical treatment. The Farm Jail (Rountree Minimum Security Facility) Findings 1. This facility has a Board of Corrections’ rated capacity of 162 with current staff and a maximum capacity of 250 with additional staffing. As of March 26, 2004, the population was 97 inmates. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES. 2. Inmates sleep in dorm-like beds with all beds at least 12 inches above the floor. 3. No deaths have occurred since the last report. 4. Four escapes have occurred since July 1, 2003. All escaped inmates have been apprehended. 5. The Farm is a program-based facility. Inmates can continue some educational programs at Adult School free of charge if the program was started while they were incarcerated. Each inmate is enrolled in at least one program. Programs and classes include: • Work release. • Auto body and paint. • Computer. • Domestic violence awareness. - 22 Santa Cruz County Jails Review • Gang awareness. • Family reunification. • General Education Diplomas (GED). • Building maintenance and landscaping. • AIDS education and testing. • HIV awareness. • Regional Occupational Programs. • English as a Second Language. • Parenting. • Anger management. • California Conservation Corps. • Cabrillo College classes. • Animal bonding program. Substance abuse programs: • Ray of Hope. • Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). • Narcotics Anonymous (NA). • Cocaine Anonymous (CA). • S.A.F.E. 6. Inmates prepare meals under direct supervision, using a posted menu. 7. A designated area outside the building is used for family visits with a play area for children. In another area are an inmate-built koi pond, gardens and an animal enclosure for ducks, peacocks and other animals used in the animal bonding program. Outdoor recreation includes horseshoes, baseball, and other activities. 8. Total staffing level at both facilities on the Rountree site is seven staff members during the day and six at night. Conclusions 1. Rountree is a well run facility. 2. Rountree inmates benefit from its variety of programs, including increased inmate involvement in the S.A.F.E. program. 3. Meals are nutritious and appealing at both the medium-security and the minimum- security facilities. Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 23 4. The interior of the minimum-security building is in good condition.
F18:
Staff consists of 14 during the daytime and 13 at night.
F19:
At each level, staff was able to provide immediate, detailed answers to questions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. - 20 Santa Cruz County Jails Review
F20:
At the time of the Grand Jury review, July 23, 2003 and March 23, 2004, the facility was exceptionally clean and well maintained. Conclusions 1. The facility is well managed by its staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Jail staff should be commended for its efficiency and good work running the jail. - 20 Santa Cruz County Jails Review
F21:
Postage for correspondence is provided free of charge. Juveniles cannot write to anyone in another institution or to anyone protected by a restraining order.
F22:
Juveniles have access to a phone during intake and free-time hours to make collect calls. Only under special circumstances can juveniles use a staff phone.
F23:
Juveniles shower every day and have their hair cut every four to six weeks. - 30 Santa Cruz County Jails Review Conclusions 1. The exterior of the Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall building and grounds are in excellent condition.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The Master Transportation Study cost a total of $632,000: • $250,000 from UCSC. • $250,000 from City of Santa Cruz general fund. • $32,000 grant from Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control Board for general use. • $50,000 grant from Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control Board for pedestrian study. • $50,000 grant from Transportation Development Authority for Soquel Avenue bike lane study project. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Santa Cruz Sentinel, 10 April 2004. The City and UCSC entered into an agreement to share the $500,000 portion of the project evenly.
F2:
The Master Transportation Study took over two years to develop. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
F3:
The MTS was accepted as a foundation for transportation to be incorporated in the policies, programs and projects in the 2020 General Plan process for the City of Santa Cruz. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. City Planning Department staff is currently working on the General Plan and will use the MTS and the last General Plan as the central policy documents for the new circulation element.
F4:
A recurring theme in the MTS suggests three basic requirements for reducing the impact of growing traffic: a. Use of carpools and ride sharing. b. Increase walking and bicycling. c. Significantly increase ridership on the SC Metro. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District AGREES. Each of the items mentioned above will serve to reduce the impact of growing traffic.
F5:
The automobile is the predominant method of travel in Santa Cruz. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District AGREES.
F6:
If the traffic management measures suggested in the MTS prove successful, Vehicle Hours of Delay in 2020 will be approximately 15% worse than today. If they are not, VHD is projected to increase 92%. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. - 86 Transportation Report
F7:
One and one half pages of the MTS’s 284 pages look at traffic considerations generated by UCSC. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The Master Transportation Study evaluated UCSC traffic as part of its Future Traffic Analysis: See Table 4 ( ), Table 6 ( ), and Table 8 ( ). It also discussed options for addressing UCSC-related traffic in the following areas: Eastside/UCSC connector route ( ), future UCSC growth and an enhanced regional transit system ( ), transit background (Pages 71, 72, 73 and 74), Transportation Systems Management ( ), TDM Activities in Santa Cruz ( ), “Park and Ride” lots for University commuters ( ), car share program ( ), and University growth ( ).
F8:
UCSC growth is seen as an issue for future consideration with respect to traffic congestion. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. At the time of the completion of the MTS, UCSC had not identified a growth target for the new Long Range Development Plan.
F9:
UCSC’s Long Range Development Plan includes 6,000 additional students that will further affect traffic congestion and parking in Santa Cruz. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY DISAGREES. UCSC’s current Long Range Development Plan assumptions include a 21,000 student population. The MTS future traffic projections were based on a UCSC student population of 16,000 students. Based on these numbers, the General Plan and the UCSC Long Range Development Plan will need to address an additional 5,000 students.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City of Santa Cruz should develop a plan to solve the UCSC traffic impact problems for now as well as in the future. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable to promise that we can solve traffic impact problems with a separate UCSC plan. The recommendation focuses only on growth from UCSC while future delay and congestion is influenced by factors which include local and regional growth. In 2000, UCSC vehicle trips represented 7% of the total vehicle trips in Santa Cruz, 22% of the carpool trips, and 17% of the transit trips for internal trips. Focusing only on UCSC traffic impacts will not fully address current or future problems. The City of Santa Cruz is working cooperatively with UCSC and the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (SCMTD) on transportation issues related to UCSC and City growth. Most recently, the agencies have combined resources to apply for a transportation planning grant for the Bay Street corridor, the primary access to UCSC. In addition, ongoing coordination exists between the City and UCSC on the development of the UCSC Long Range Development Plan and the City’s General Plan Update.
F10:
The MTS refers to a “high-occupancy passenger connection from UCSC to regional transit via a new access method needs to be evaluated as a potentially more efficient and effective route to reduce Westside traffic impact and serve local and regional UCSC travel markets.”11 Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. 11City of Santa Cruz Master Transportation Study, .
F11:
The MTS was precluded from any consideration of an eastern access to UCSC as a stipulation in the agreement setting up the MTS. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
F12:
City Council, by motion and acceptance, will not entertain the idea of any road through Pogonip. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES. The City Council stated that it will not entertain a road serving automobiles. It did not preclude a busway or railway as a possible alternative.
F13:
The MTS is seen by the City Council as a framework. Its recommendations are non-binding. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. It serves as a foundation policy document for the General Plan
F14:
City Transportation Commission is charged to develop specific plans to implement the MTS. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
F15:
Santa Cruz City Council approved of 19 prioritized projects for roadway modification and signal projects. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City of Santa Cruz should develop a short-range plan to mitigate existing, escalating traffic flow and parking problems beyond those offered in the 19 prioritized projects passed on January 20, 2004. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented to the extent that funding permits. The projects that were proposed at the meeting come from the MTS for inclusion in the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) update. These are in addition to the many other City projects in the current RTIP which carry forward to the update. Projects must be in the RTIP in order to receive Federal and State transportation grants. There are other locally funded transportation projects that are not part of the RTIP, but are included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Modifications to the RTIP and CIP can occur on an annual basis based on more current traffic studies and revised priorities. Limited funding for these projects is always an issue, especially during - 90 Transportation Report the current State and local budget crisis. The City, like every other agency, relies heavily on State and Federal transportation grants for implementation of transportation improvements.
F16:
Santa Cruz Metro ridership should increase 125% by 2020, according to MTS. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The City of Santa Cruz agrees with this finding as part of the No Growth Alternative for external trips as part of the implementation of Bus Rapid Transit on the Union Pacific Railroad Corridor. For internal transit trips, the transit trips would need to increase 50% (see Table 7, ). Response: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District AGREES. The issue that is not discussed within the MTS document is the funding strategies as to how this increase would be accomplished. The challenges that exist would be the - 88 Transportation Report operating funding to run the additional service, and the capital funds to purchase the equipment. The current plans for the MetroBase project do not have the capacity to deal with this level of expansion. The MTS also does not address nor consider transit needs throughout the County, which is the jurisdiction for Santa Cruz METRO. The City of Santa Cruz is only represented on the METRO Board by two of the 11 members. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
A park-and-ride facility should be developed at or near the intersection of Highways 1 and 9, with express bus service to major destinations within the city. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will, we hope, be implemented in the future if the planning process described below results in a positive recommendation for such a facility and if funding is available. The City of Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency is in the process of developing a re-use plan for Salz Tannery (Tannery Arts Center), located at the northeast quadrant of the Highway 1/9 intersection, which includes a Park and Ride Lot. In addition, the City’s Redevelopment Agency has funded the design of improvements to the Highway 1/9 intersection and the preparation of a Caltrans Project Report. It is anticipated that express bus service to UCSC and over the hill, and the Beach shuttle could be accommodated. These and other possible express bus service to other destinations would have to be evaluated by the SCMTD.
Findings & Recommendations
24 findings
F1:
There are many applications for federal and state grant money. For example, the California Department of Fish and Game alone receives about 400 proposals for projects each year. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. Santa Cruz County - 41
F2:
Santa Cruz County funds the RCD with approximately $40,000 annually to cover miscellaneous expenses. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. While it is true that the County has provided funding to RCD over the years, the amount for the current year is $29,000. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should continue to fund this valuable agency. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should continue to fund this valuable agency.
F3:
The district brings in grant money for projects worth millions of dollars. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
F4:
The SCCRCD operates with a staff of two full-time and six part-time employees. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
F5:
The district’s charter establishes it as a non-regulatory agency. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
F6:
Proposals must be available for assessment, enhancement and implementation of a project before a grant application can be submitted. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. The SCCRCD responds to requests for proposals.
F7:
Grants are awarded for various purposes: for studies, designs, plans and reports as well as for implementation. Grant funds can be used for the stated purpose only. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
F8:
Each granting authority has stringent auditing requirements for both labor charges and report contents. Labor hours are audited on each submittal. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
F9:
Permits currently can take up to two years to process. A single stream project may require as many as five separate permits from different agencies before it can proceed. They include the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Marine Fisheries Services and several county agencies. - 42 Santa Cruz County Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
F10:
Landowners and the SCCRCD see the permit process as a daunting problem. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Funding should be found to continue the SCCRCD’s role as a permit coordinator. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND. Implementation of this recommendation requires further analysis and should be deferred until such time that the RCD’s permit coordination program has been fully defined and implemented to the satisfaction of both the County and RCD. At this stage, there are many issues yet to be resolved before this program can be declared a success. If that program proves successful, the County would then explore whether there are fiscal options available to fund RCD for this purpose. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The SCCRCD is actively trying to identify funding for a permit coordinator. The Natural Resources Conservation Service has dedicated part time staff support for the program. Santa Cruz County - 47
F11:
The SCCRCD has many years’ experience in dealing with these agencies and understands the permit process. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
F12:
The SCCRCD received a $4.5 million grant from the California Coastal Conservancy to take on a new role of coordinating projects through their design and permit phases. The Coastal Conservancy gave the following reasons for selecting the SCCRCD: It is a non-regulatory agency and thus not threatening to property owners nor conflicting with other regulatory agencies. The non-regulatory requirement eliminated many other potential choices. • The SCCRCD’s jurisdiction is the unincorporated area of the county. In addition, the City of Capitola is included in the SCCRCD’s jurisdiction • The SCCRCD already successfully completed several watershed projects and is “considered to be a great grant manager.”3 Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
F13:
SCCRCD recommends contractors and consultants from an approved list of specialists. Final selection is with the user. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District PARTIALLY AGREES. The list contains names of Certified Professional Erosion and Sediment Control Specialists (CPESC).
F14:
The California Department of Fish and Game has worked with SCCRCD for more than 20 years. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. California Coastal Conservancy. Santa Cruz County - 43
F15:
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has worked with SCCRCD for 63 years. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
F16:
The SCCRCD publicizes its resources through brochures, handouts, press releases, newspaper articles, radio, word of mouth, e-mail list servers, direct mailing or personal recommendations. The SCCRCD uses its own newsletters or it may be included in other newsletters as a technical resource. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District should work to expand public awareness of its services. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. The SCCRCD has developed a website, newsletter and specific program press releases. There is a contact form posted on the sccrcd@sccrcd.org website.
F17:
The SCCRCD receives numerous contacts from road associations, landowners and land managers who have learned about it from the various ways the agency publicizes itself. The Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau Newsletter’s monthly article, written by the SCCRCD or the Natural Resources Conservation Service, often refers growers and landowners to the SCCRCD. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District should work to expand public awareness of its services. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. The SCCRCD has developed a website, newsletter and specific program press releases. There is a contact form posted on the sccrcd@sccrcd.org website.
F18:
Landowners are often referred to the SCCRCD by agencies or community groups or other landowners as a source of technical assistance and information. The SCCRCD recently created a Web site and has an intern making it more user- friendly. The district has noticed that other groups have links to its Web site as well. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District should work to expand public awareness of its services. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. The SCCRCD has developed a website, newsletter and specific program press releases. There is a contact form posted on the sccrcd@sccrcd.org website.
F19:
Critics say the money spent on reports would be better spent on projects.4 Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District PARTIALLY AGREES. The SCCRCD helps people protect, conserve and restore natural resources through information, education, and technical assistance programs. The development of Watershed Assessment and Enhancement Project Plans was necessary to secure implementation funding for projects.
F20:
The district cannot use grant money specified for reports to implement projects. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. Valley Press, 28 October – 4 November 2003. - 44 Santa Cruz County
F21:
Critics say that the SCCRCD makes decisions without public input. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District PARTIALLY AGREES. The SCCRCD Board Meetings are posted and open to the public. There is time scheduled on each agenda to receive public input. Individual projects are between the SCCRCD and individual landowners. The SCCRCD has developed a website and newsletter outlining programs and regularly solicits public participation and input through press releases, workshops, public meetings and through direct constituent communication.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District should allow as much public input as possible. Even if grantors do not require it, this helps enhance the project itself, builds good community relations and publicizes the work of the SCCRCD. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. The mission of the Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District is to help - 46 Santa Cruz County people protect, conserve, and restore natural resources through information, education, and technical assistance programs. The SCCRCD agrees with this recommendation and is developing a website, speaking at public meetings and schools, participating in the County Fair, developing a regular newsletter, conducting more outreach for SCCRCD sponsored events and partnering with water districts and community groups on outreach events.
F22:
Public input is not required by most granting authorities dealing with the district. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District PARTIALLY AGREES. There are components within most of the grant programs that include public meetings, press releases, workshops and tours for public participation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District should allow as much public input as possible. Even if grantors do not require it, this helps enhance the project itself, builds good community relations and publicizes the work of the SCCRCD. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. The mission of the Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District is to help - 46 Santa Cruz County people protect, conserve, and restore natural resources through information, education, and technical assistance programs. The SCCRCD agrees with this recommendation and is developing a website, speaking at public meetings and schools, participating in the County Fair, developing a regular newsletter, conducting more outreach for SCCRCD sponsored events and partnering with water districts and community groups on outreach events.
F23:
Critics allege that some landowners have illegally diverted water or otherwise violated water and environmental resource law. These critics say that the SCCRCD should release the names of these landowners. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District DISAGREES. The District’s non-regulatory status does not allow it to become involved in enforcing the law. There are existing regulatory agencies with that jurisdiction.
F24:
The district’s non-regulatory status does not allow it to become involved in enforcing the law. Response: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District AGREES. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District should be praised for the fine work it is doing. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The Board shares the Grand Jury’s appreciation of the work of the Resource Conservation District.
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The December 3, 2003 minutes of the Soquel Union Elementary School District’s Board of Trustees meeting gave notice that the district's next meeting would be December 17, 2003. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES. The minutes of the December 3, 2003 meeting state that “the next Board of Trustees regular meeting is scheduled December 17, 2003. . .” (underlined for emphasis). It is important to note that minutes are not used as communication regarding meetings. The minutes for the December 3, 2003, meeting were not available to the public until the meeting of December 17th, 2003 at which they were approved.
F2:
A special meeting to set goals and objectives was held on December 9, 2003. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F3:
District officials say the December 9, 2003 meeting was properly noticed in the same way that all school board meetings are. The public is notified about the meeting in several ways: • Notice is posted on bulletin boards at each school. • Information is faxed to local newspapers and media outlets. • Information is posted on the district’s Web site. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. We note that agendas are also posted in the display window on the exterior front wall at the district office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Soquel Union Elementary School District should work to ensure that the public knows that all board meetings are open. The public should not be expected to know the fine points of the Brown Act. It is up to the Board of Trustees and the Superintendent to go the extra mile to make sure their business is done in the open. The Board and the Superintendent should also work hard to make sure the public knows its rights to information. They should take extra care to make information available in a timely manner. This is especially important when facing such potentially contentious issues as school closings. The easily dispelled and incorrect rumors in this report should not have had to come to the Grand Jury to be resolved. Allowing them to circulate unchallenged in a school community makes for mistrust and divisiveness. This is particularly unfortunate at a time when a school was closed. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. The Board of Trustees and District officials currently ensure that the public is aware of meetings, especially those at which key decisions will be made. The district regularly posts notices that exceed the requirements of the Brown Act. When issues of significant impact have arisen, such as deep budget cuts or the closing of a school, notices of meetings were sent home with every child in the district. In the last two years we have had public meetings on serious issues in school auditoriums filled to capacity with observers. This is evidence of our level of communication. The Board of Trustees and District officials agree that this matter should not have had to come to the Grand Jury to be resolved. All of the information reviewed had been public prior to the Grand Jury inquiry. Many of these issues had been raised at widely attended public meetings and been answered again and again by both Trustees and District officials. The Citizens’ Oversight Committee, responsible for the oversight of Bond funds, was available as an avenue for complaint. The Citizens’ Oversight Committee has published newsletters sent home with every child in the district and maintains a website linked to the district website, so this committee and its purpose were known.
F4:
The Grand Jury heard testimony that a president of a Home and School Club asked about the December 9, 2003 Goals and Objectives Workshop ahead of time and was told they could not attend. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District CANNOT RESPOND. Neither the Superintendent nor a member of the Board of Trustees was present for testimony as described and any response would be speculative.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Soquel Union Elementary School District should work to ensure that the public knows that all board meetings are open. The public should not be expected to know the fine points of the Brown Act. It is up to the Board of Trustees and the Superintendent to go the extra mile to make sure their business is done in the open. The Board and the Superintendent should also work hard to make sure the public knows its rights to information. They should take extra care to make information available in a timely manner. This is especially important when facing such potentially contentious issues as school closings. The easily dispelled and incorrect rumors in this report should not have had to come to the Grand Jury to be resolved. Allowing them to circulate unchallenged in a school community makes for mistrust and divisiveness. This is particularly unfortunate at a time when a school was closed. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. The Board of Trustees and District officials currently ensure that the public is aware of meetings, especially those at which key decisions will be made. The district regularly posts notices that exceed the requirements of the Brown Act. When issues of significant impact have arisen, such as deep budget cuts or the closing of a school, notices of meetings were sent home with every child in the district. In the last two years we have had public meetings on serious issues in school auditoriums filled to capacity with observers. This is evidence of our level of communication. The Board of Trustees and District officials agree that this matter should not have had to come to the Grand Jury to be resolved. All of the information reviewed had been public prior to the Grand Jury inquiry. Many of these issues had been raised at widely attended public meetings and been answered again and again by both Trustees and District officials. The Citizens’ Oversight Committee, responsible for the oversight of Bond funds, was available as an avenue for complaint. The Citizens’ Oversight Committee has published newsletters sent home with every child in the district and maintains a website linked to the district website, so this committee and its purpose were known.
F5:
The Grand Jury heard testimony that this person was told that presidents of the Home and School Clubs were not invited to participate in the Goals and Objectives Workshop but were welcome to observe. Invited participants included school board - 48 Soquel Union Elementary School District Report members, presidents of School Site Councils and representatives of the California School Education Association (CSEA) and Soquel Education Association (SEA) unions for each school. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District CANNOT RESPOND. Because the Superintendent and/or Board of Trustees has not been told the identity of the person referred to above, it is difficult to agree or disagree with the specific language in the statement. However, it is the strong belief of District officials that at no time was anyone told that they could not attend as an observer to the meeting. The goals setting process involved structured interactive “focus group” discussions between representatives of employee groups, Site Council Presidents, a representative from the Citizens’ Oversight Committee and members of the Board of Trustees. Inquiries had been made as to whether others could be a part of the focus groups. Those making inquiry were told that, to make the focus group process manageable, the focus groups were set as described above, but that the meeting was a public meeting. At least one individual making inquiry was specifically told by the Superintendent that observers were welcome.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Soquel Union Elementary School District should work to ensure that the public knows that all board meetings are open. The public should not be expected to know the fine points of the Brown Act. It is up to the Board of Trustees and the Superintendent to go the extra mile to make sure their business is done in the open. The Board and the Superintendent should also work hard to make sure the public knows its rights to information. They should take extra care to make information available in a timely manner. This is especially important when facing such potentially contentious issues as school closings. The easily dispelled and incorrect rumors in this report should not have had to come to the Grand Jury to be resolved. Allowing them to circulate unchallenged in a school community makes for mistrust and divisiveness. This is particularly unfortunate at a time when a school was closed. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. The Board of Trustees and District officials currently ensure that the public is aware of meetings, especially those at which key decisions will be made. The district regularly posts notices that exceed the requirements of the Brown Act. When issues of significant impact have arisen, such as deep budget cuts or the closing of a school, notices of meetings were sent home with every child in the district. In the last two years we have had public meetings on serious issues in school auditoriums filled to capacity with observers. This is evidence of our level of communication. The Board of Trustees and District officials agree that this matter should not have had to come to the Grand Jury to be resolved. All of the information reviewed had been public prior to the Grand Jury inquiry. Many of these issues had been raised at widely attended public meetings and been answered again and again by both Trustees and District officials. The Citizens’ Oversight Committee, responsible for the oversight of Bond funds, was available as an avenue for complaint. The Citizens’ Oversight Committee has published newsletters sent home with every child in the district and maintains a website linked to the district website, so this committee and its purpose were known.
F6:
The agenda for the December 9, 2003 meeting lists the following items: • A public session. • Time for public communications. • A Goals and Objectives Workshop. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F7:
District officials said that no members of the public attended the meeting. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. The focus groups included members of the public, therefore, members of the public did attend the meeting. Some of those members of the public participating in the focus groups were frequent attendees at other Board meetings. District officials said that no members of the public attended the meeting purely as observers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Soquel Union Elementary School District should work to ensure that the public knows that all board meetings are open. The public should not be expected to know the fine points of the Brown Act. It is up to the Board of Trustees and the Superintendent to go the extra mile to make sure their business is done in the open. The Board and the Superintendent should also work hard to make sure the public knows its rights to information. They should take extra care to make information available in a timely manner. This is especially important when facing such potentially contentious issues as school closings. The easily dispelled and incorrect rumors in this report should not have had to come to the Grand Jury to be resolved. Allowing them to circulate unchallenged in a school community makes for mistrust and divisiveness. This is particularly unfortunate at a time when a school was closed. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. The Board of Trustees and District officials currently ensure that the public is aware of meetings, especially those at which key decisions will be made. The district regularly posts notices that exceed the requirements of the Brown Act. When issues of significant impact have arisen, such as deep budget cuts or the closing of a school, notices of meetings were sent home with every child in the district. In the last two years we have had public meetings on serious issues in school auditoriums filled to capacity with observers. This is evidence of our level of communication. The Board of Trustees and District officials agree that this matter should not have had to come to the Grand Jury to be resolved. All of the information reviewed had been public prior to the Grand Jury inquiry. Many of these issues had been raised at widely attended public meetings and been answered again and again by both Trustees and District officials. The Citizens’ Oversight Committee, responsible for the oversight of Bond funds, was available as an avenue for complaint. The Citizens’ Oversight Committee has published newsletters sent home with every child in the district and maintains a website linked to the district website, so this committee and its purpose were known.
F8:
The text of Ballot Measure A (March 2002) gives a complete list of construction and modernization projects for the school district's five schools. For details, see Appendix B. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. 2003 – 2004 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
F9:
An update of the district's construction funding as of February 8, 2004 shows projects, construction management costs and bond costs totaling approximately $11.5 million. For details, see Appendix C. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F10:
All bond money is spent under a specific coding. Money raised from a construction bond cannot be spent on anything but construction, construction management and bond costs. Moving funds meant for one construction project to another construction project is a common and acceptable practice. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. Further, the Board of Trustees approves all transfers among projects in open session.
F11:
Facilities funds not restricted to other projects (e.g., funds from a bond for other projects) or purposes (e.g., maintenance) may be used to protect a school district's legal rights to use specific real property for school facilities, including litigation. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F12:
All check requests go through the County Office of Education, where the checks are written. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F13:
The school district's 2003 lawsuit against the City of Capitola was funded by the sale of the Parrish house, a piece of property the district owned. After deducting costs such as agent and escrow fees, the sale of the $303,000 property raised $286,396. The cost of the lawsuit was $360,784. The difference between the two figures is $74,388. That money is coded as coming from capital outlay funds, not from bond funds.3 This fund includes school fees paid by developers. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES.
F14:
School districts are required to have balanced budgets. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education closely monitors their budgets. If they are not balanced, in extreme cases the state will step in and appoint a trustee to oversee operations. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. Soquel Union Elementary School District financial records. - 50 Soquel Union Elementary School District Report
F15:
School board trustees are charged with ensuring a free and adequate education, overseeing the spending of taxpayers' money and approving balanced budgets each year. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES. We note that the phrase commonly used and consistent with federal law is “free and appropriate education”.
F16:
The school district “deficit spent in its general fund”4 for the four years before its 2003-2004 budget. Auditors recommended the following: “The budget for 2003-2004 must be constantly compared to actual results and no additional expenditures approved unless there are cost savings in other areas, or unexpected revenue is realized. In the future the budget should not be approved if appropriates exceed revenues. The District (should) develop budgets in the future that ensure available reserves exceed the minimum state requirements of three percent of total General Fund outgo.”5 The district’s response was: “The District is currently operating with a balanced budget for 2003-2004. The District is making every effort to accumulate and retain sufficient reserves to provide a cushion against further economic uncertainties. The District is relying on the flexibility allowed by the State during the next few years to achieve adequate reserves.”6 District officials dispute the auditors’ finding of deficit spending on technical grounds. School budgets include both restricted and unrestricted funds. Restricted funds are for categorical items with strict control over how they may be spent. Such funds are allowed to carry over balances from one fiscal year to the next. The district was expecting surpluses in its unrestricted funds, which can be used in any way. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. Soquel Union Elementary School District, County of Santa Cruz, Capitola, California Audit Report, June 30, 2003. Goodell, Porter & Fredericks, L.L.P., Certified Public Accountants. Soquel Union Elementary School District, County of Santa Cruz, Capitola, California Audit Report, June 30, 2003. Goodell, Porter & Fredericks, L.L.P., Certified Public Accountants. Soquel Union Elementary School District, County of Santa Cruz, Capitola, California Audit Report, June 30, 2003. Goodell, Porter & Fredericks, L.L.P., Certified Public Accountants. 2003 – 2004 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Soquel Union Elementary School District’s Board of Trustees is to be commended for making difficult decisions in order to keep its district solvent without cutting programs and staff. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES. Though not asked to respond to Recommendation 3, the Board of Trustees and the Superintendent appreciate this commendation. Difficult decisions, such as cutting programs, laying off staff and closing schools, by their nature create an emotionally charged atmosphere. We believe that this highly emotionally charged atmosphere was one of the factors that led to questions going before the Grand Jury that had already been thoroughly asked and answered locally.
F17:
The public elects school board trustees. They serve until they leave office in one of several ways. Their term can expire, they may be recalled, they may lose an election, or they may leave office in any of a number of other ways. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
School board trustees are elected to vote according to their own consciences in carrying out their duties. They are accountable to the public through the ballot box. Members of the public who feel they are not being well represented have the option to recall trustees or to support another candidate at election time. 2003 – 2004 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
F2001:
The lawsuit involved land at Jade Street Park. The school district bought the land in 1952 in order to build a school when needed. In the 1960s, the district leased the land to the City of Capitola, which used it for a park, built tennis courts and constructed a community center. The school district's enrollment is cyclical. At the time of the lawsuit, it was in a high period. The district wanted the land back to use for a school, but the city wanted to keep the land for a park and offered to buy it. The district sued the City of Capitola to defend its property rights. Opponents of a school at Jade Street Park and those who opposed closing Capitola Elementary School viewed the lawsuit as another step toward building a school at the park and closing Capitola Elementary. The Soquel School District’s claim to the property was upheld in court. The City of Capitola was allowed to continue to use the site until needed by the school district. In March 2003, the closure of Capitola Elementary for the 2003-2004 school year appeared on the school board's agenda, as part of a solution to the district's budget shortfall. The City of Capitola donated $160,000 to keep the school open that year. Like many other districts in the state, Soquel is facing a budget shortfall again this next fiscal year (2004-2005). This year's shortfall is $290,000, and the City of Capitola has made no donation. School trustees decided to close Capitola Elementary School to save money and to transfer its students to other campuses. The overcrowded middle school will expand into the old elementary school classrooms. Capitola Elementary parents opposed this move. The school board voted in March 2004 to move forward with plans to close Capitola Elementary School, a process that must go through California Environmental Quality Act review. If the project is successful, students from Capitola Elementary School will attend new schools as soon as Fall 2004. Students from the school have already been notified which new schools they will be attending, should the plan be approved. A group of parents from Capitola Elementary School have announced plans to form a charter school. District officials say there is a need for a pre-kindergarten and pre-school, which could be located at Jade Street Park. Scope This investigation focused on five areas: - 46 Soquel Union Elementary School District Report 1. Did the Soquel Union Elementary School District Board of Trustees and Superintendent violate any local, state or federal laws? 2. Did the Soquel Union Elementary School District Board of Trustees or Superintendent violate the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 – 54963)? 3. Did the Soquel Union Elementary School District Board of Trustees violate the terms of the 2002 Measure A General Obligation Bond? 4. Did the Soquel Union Elementary School District Board of Trustees illegally spend the proceeds of the Measure A General Obligation Bond? 5. How was the Soquel Union Elementary School District's lawsuit against the City of Capitola funded? Did the money come from Measure A General Obligation bond funds? Sources Interviewed: Santa Cruz County Office of Education officials. Soquel Union Elementary School District officials. Complainants. Reviewed: California Education Code Section 17455-17584. Complaint made to the Santa Cruz Grand Jury signed by 28 people. E-mails from Soquel Union Elementary School District residents. Government Code Section 54950-54963, also known as the Ralph M. Brown Act. Santa Cruz Sentinel. Soquel Union Elementary School District Board minutes. Soquel Union Elementary School District, County of Santa Cruz, Capitola, California Audit Report, June 30, 2003. Goodell, Porter & Fredericks, L.L.P., Certified Public Accountants. Soquel Union Elementary School District documents, letters, financial records and e-mails. Soquel Union Elementary School District Web site, www.soqueldo.santacruz.k12.ca.us. Update on the General Obligation Bond Issuance and Construction Funding, February 18, 2004. Voter Information Pamphlet, Measure Q, March 2000. Voter Information Pamphlet, Measure A, November 2001. 2003 – 2004 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Findings 1. The December 3, 2003 minutes of the Soquel Union Elementary School District’s Board of Trustees meeting gave notice that the district's next meeting would be December 17, 2003. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES. The minutes of the December 3, 2003 meeting state that “the next Board of Trustees regular meeting is scheduled December 17, 2003. . .” (underlined for emphasis). It is important to note that minutes are not used as communication regarding meetings. The minutes for the December 3, 2003, meeting were not available to the public until the meeting of December 17th, 2003 at which they were approved.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
In a November 9, 1999 letter of resignation, the HSA administrator warned the Board of Supervisors that it should exert greater fiscal oversight over the HSA. He stated, “Given that the budget of the Health Services Agency is in excess of $70 million with approximately 85% of the budgetary support coming from non-County sources, it is even more essential that the health administration and fiscal management be closely monitored.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The former HSA Director was concerned that the Chief of Administration did not have a strong fiscal background in terms of health cost reports, claims, and audits. This was remedied when this individual retired and a health finance manager with extensive experience was hired to be Director of Administration. The current HSA Director was recommended because of her strong fiscal as well as clinical skills by the former HSA Director.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should spend more time overseeing HSA’s spending recommendations. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The Board and the County Auditor-Controller have stringent spending policies, and oversight is regularly performed as part of the budget process. The HSA has worked to increase revenues significantly compared to other Departments and has saved many positions and programs by these efforts. Using consultation for the projects described is a routine part of good business practice in health systems.
F2:
ECG Management Consultants, Incorporated (ECG): ECG serves as a consultancy firm and is based in Seattle, Washington. It specializes in “hospital and physician The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 85 relationships, strategic and business planning, and the complexities of the healthcare enterprise.”2 Total Compensation for 2001-2003: $597,565 A. In the 2000-2001 Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors’ budget hearings, the HSA argued for the need of a new software program to replace HSA’s COSTAR billing system and the set up of an Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system for the county clinics. The HSA pointed out that federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) imposed a deadline of October 16, 2003 for healthcare clinics to develop EMR systems. The Board authorized HSA to proceed with a new computer system for the clinics. To fund the system the Board authorized $535,000 from the state audit settlement of $2,156,430 to be placed in the County’s Technology and Productivity fund for use toward the computer upgrade. The state audit settlement resulted from HSA’s increased billings for county mental health psychiatrist visits under the Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) designation that the county clinics received starting in 1988 as a result of a healthcare services for the homeless grant. The state questioned the increased billings and had not funded its share of costs. The state allowed the increased billings using the FQHC designation, which resulted in the settlement of $2,156,430. Thus, clinic physicians generated most of this money, which was derived from Medi-Cal revenues. B. The HSA also looked into creating a clinical practice management information system (MIS) network, which would incorporate the new computer system to link the two county clinics to the Santa Cruz County community clinics. The community clinics consisted of the four Planned Parenthood clinics (South, Westside, Cabrillo, Valley), Salud Para la Gente, Women’s Health Center, and Dientes. The linked clinics could share information from patient medical and pharmacy records, as well as laboratory and radiology results. The HSA contacted the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and a former HSA administrator for advice on how to proceed. HRSA and the former HSA administrator pointed out that the Oregon Community Health Information Network (OCHIN) based in Portland, Oregon was in the process of finalizing its vendor selection for setting up a community clinic network, which would link the EMR of the community clinics throughout Oregon. OCHIN had selected Epic Systems Corporation (Epic) as its software vendor. The HSA staff met with OCHIN and ECG representatives. ECG had acted as a consultant to assist OCHIN in setting up its MIS network. HSA learned that OCHIN had received its network financing through a federally funded 2 ECG Web site. - 86 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s Community Access Program (CAP) and Healthy Community Access Program (HCAP) grants. C. In the 2001-2002 budget hearings, the HSA asked the Board of Supervisors to approve the hiring of ECG to assist the agency on the medical information technology upgrade project. The HSA pointed out that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) imposed a deadline of October 16, 2003 for healthcare clinics to develop EMR systems. The HIPAA requirement for an EMR system did not extend beyond individual clinics and did not require a linked MIS between clinics. D. The HSA contracted with ECG without getting bids from other companies. ECG signed the first of two contracts with Santa Cruz County on August 28, 2001. The cost of the first contract was not to exceed $130,000. ECG’s rates were $375/hour for the project officer, $270/hour for the project manager, and $185/hour for their associate. This contract stipulated that ECG would provide consultant services to the HSA related to development, analysis, evaluation, and selection of a MIS for the county clinics. E. In October 2001, ECG initiated the MIS vendor selection process. HSA staff (at an expense of $2,000 per person) and ECG consultants attended a Medical Group Management Association conference in San Antonio, Texas. F. In November 2001, ECG and the HSA narrowed the choice of vendors to four: Companion Tech.; McKesson, Inc.; Medical Manager Health Pro; and NextGen, Inc. In that same month the HSA sustained a loss of revenue from a decrease in federal and state money to FQHC clinics and the repeal of the utility tax for the unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County. G. In December 2001, the four vendors presented and demonstrated their products in Santa Cruz. In January 2002, NextGen returned to present its full product demonstration. H. In March 2002, the HSA proposed expanding ECG’s role to include a study on management assistance “to implement operational and organizational solutions that will enhance efficiency and improve clinic performance.” The proposed fees would be $34,000/month for an estimated time period from four ($136,000) to six ($204,000) months. I. On April 9, 2002, the HSA argued before the Board of Supervisors that cost reductions to the clinics could be achieved through ECG’s evaluation of The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 87 clinic productivity and efficiency. The board approved the expansion of ECG’s study. The HSA stated at the same meeting that the primary mission of the agency was to protect the community from communicable diseases and health issues that threaten the community. J. On October 24, 2002, the second contract expanded ECG’s scope to include the clinics’ practice management system consultation, clinics’ operations assessment, clinics’ operations implementation, and contract facilitation and negotiation, with hourly rates from $185 to $410. The additional cost of $85,000 brought the total to $215,000, which would come from the $535,000 allocated earlier by the Board of Supervisors. K. On May 7, 2002, the HSA submitted the CAP grant application to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for the first year of funding. The application stated “we have prepared the safety net clinics and hospitals to cooperate on an unprecedented level by implementing common EMRs and clinical messaging, improving both the efficiency and quality of care provided to the County’s safety net clinics.” NextGen was listed as the HSA’s software vendor. HRSA approved the $1,403,450 grant, which included $601,000 for information technology software. L. On September 24, 2002, the HSA informed the Board of Supervisors of ECG’s recommendations to improve clinic/Medi-Cruz finances and services. At that same meeting, it was noted that reduced funding resulted in reductions in the care capacity for Medi-Cruz patients. M. On November 5, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved an additional contract amendment for ECG, which added $268,000 for consultation, clinic software and operational charges. The cost of ECG’s services now totaled $483,000. ECG’s original estimate of $130,000 had now increased by $353,000. N. On January 10, 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved an additional ECG contract amendment for ECG’s consultation on clinic operational charges, which amounted to $95,000. The total cost for ECG’s consultancy services now reached $578,000, which exceeded the $535,000, the Board of Supervisors had allocated for an upgraded EMR system. O. On August 25, 2003, the HSA applied for and received approval from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for the Healthy Communities Access Program (HCAP) grant, which funded years two and three after the first year of funding of the CAP grant. HSA’s practice management system vendor changed from NextGen to Epic software. The OCHIN network had agreed to add the Santa Cruz County community - 88 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s health MIS network to its Epic system, which eliminated the need for the NextGen system. However, as of January 2004 due to delays in the set-up of the OCHIN network, the Santa Cruz system is not in operation. Negotiations are underway to determine the costs of the linkage to OCHIN. P. Both the CAP and HCAP grants required in-kind funding which has not been arranged as of January 2004. The CAP grant money for the MIS has been partially spent on the set-up of the Axoltl physician messaging/dictation/ pharmacy/lab system. Q. In the meantime, an additional charge by ECG amounted to $19,565. On November 19, 2003, the HSA presented to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors the implementation of recommendations of ECG to increase the productivity of the County clinics. The Board of Supervisors accepted the findings of the report. R. The original ECG timeline targeted a completed practice management system conversion and implementation by July 2002, which has not been met. The HIPAA deadline of October 2003 has passed, and very few of the national healthcare entities are in compliance. S. As of January 2004, only two of the community clinics, Salud Para la Gente and the Women’s Center Clinic, have agreed to link with the county clinics. More than half of the community clinics (the four Planned Parenthood clinics and Dientes) have not signed up to be part of the network. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The Health Service Agency was facing two significant challenges which ECG helped to address--a failing data system and operational problems which were driving up costs. First a specialized ECG information technology team assessed the automation needs of the clinics related to the practice of primary care in a public health environment. The clinic data system was installed in 1983 and was very difficult to change and maintain. It generated many expenses for the clinics in terms of staffing because of its lack of flexibility. Registration, appointments, eligibility, billing, posting, and reconciliations were all very labor intensive. For the clinics to survive with new requirements and demands and limited new revenues, the clinics had to be as efficient as possible. It is important when making a significant purchase of a new data system to have a comprehensive assessment of your needs, as well as expertise in the available software and the reliability of software vendors. No County Health Departments have this type of internal expertise. ECG had conducted a very similar assessment for the Oregon community clinics network and was well respected by the Oregon The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 89 Counties and community clinics that participated in their software selection process. It was important to have a consulting firm which understood public sector needs in a clinic environment as well as the business of practicing medicine in this era of managed care. Oregon staff invited Santa Cruz to come observe their process. The Santa Cruz clinic team was very impressed with the knowledge and expertise of the ECG Information technology team. The County contracted with the ECG information technology team for several completely different scopes of work. The Grand Jury findings imply that the original contract of $130,000 was for everything needed to implement the new computer system. This is incorrect. Phase one of the work with ECG was an assessment of the current system and extensive review of all components of clinic business and clinical operations to define the ideal functionality of a new software system. The clinic staff clearly needed a strong practice management system with automation of many of the current manual functions, good tracking systems and reports, electronic systems for billing and posting, and good management of schedules and support resources for clinical providers. Staff from all levels of clinics gave input into the ideal software functionality and its user friendliness. Once this phase of work was complete, the next phase of work was a “request for qualifications and proposals.” ECG was responsible for developing this and sending it out to the software vendors in the field. As part of this phase of the process, a team of staff went to a meeting of the “Medical Group Management Association” in Texas because all the software vendors were going to be there demonstrating their products. Customers would also be there to whom County staff could talk about customer service, reliability, etc. This phase of the process was very time consuming because the County received 10 proposals. ECG staff worked with clinic staff and the HSA and County data staff to review the proposals in depth and narrow the focus to four vendors. Again all types of staff (business office, reception, medical records, nursing, physicians, and medical assistants) in the clinics needed to be involved to get the best evaluation of the products. Next there were actual demonstrations from the vendors which were a full day or more each. Again this required extensive time to review and evaluate each component of the software from each vendor. During this time ECG did extensive customer reference checks in and out of California. Finally the HSA data group recommended NextGen as the best match for the clinic’s needs. The clinic staff had been interested in Epic all along after seeing it in Oregon, but Epic generally works with systems with a million visits per year or more. Kaiser and Sutter have this software as it is considered one of the best in the medical field. - 90 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s ECG then recommended the County see the software in action live and be able to talk to staff using it. NextGen was an East Coast company whose nearest clinic was in Texas. So staff from clinics and data support went to Texas for several days to see the system up and running and talk to the clinic program staff who used it. The team felt the software was able to meet the need of the County and contracted with ECG to do the negotiations and develop contract language to meet clinic needs and protect the interests of the County. Again, this added to the scope of work of this contractor. This was a difficult phase for the project particularly where customization was needed for California specific billing systems. After several months, things were not moving and the County approached the Oregon Community Clinic Information Network (OCHIN) to see if Santa Cruz might join and get access to Epic software at a reasonable price as well as share overhead with them and other clinics. The response was favorable and negotiations began to explore the viability of this data partnership. At this point ECG developed a detailed feature/function check with additional specifications from our needs and asked OCHIN and NextGen to submit new bids on the software purchase, support, and maintenance as well as customization. OCHIN proposed the most favorable package to the County and ECG then focused exclusively on contract specification and governance issues with OCHIN. Santa Cruz County wanted a seat on the Board of Directors as part of the partnership. This was approved in the final arrangement which went to the Board for approval in December 2003. This concluded the work of the ECG information technology group for the County. The Epic practice management system went live on June 28th in the County clinics. With billing outstanding in the old system, it will take approximately 18 months to be completely off of the old software. The clinic and data staff are to be commended for all the hard work they did to get to this point. The program is already experiencing benefits of improved automation. Separate from the data project, ECG medical management team was hired to do a comprehensive assessment of the business practices, costs, and work flows of the HSA clinics to improve efficiency and quality. This consultation was to examine how the make the clinics more productive with the resources available and increase patient flow and satisfaction. The medical management team did an extensive assessment, which was concluded in 2003. ECG was asked to stay on and help the clinics with implementing the many complex system changes outlined in the report. They worked with an implementation team from clinics for 7 months and then assisted on a limited basis after that on technical issues. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 91 The report which went to the Board of Supervisors in April 2004 shows the tremendous job the clinic staff have done changing and improving health systems in the clinics. Clinics have increased the patient visits from 1.7 per hour to 2.2 which resulted in significant new MediCal revenues. Costs were also reduced in pharmacy and administration by over 1.7 million dollars. The clinic established physician treatment teams with dedicated support staff. Patients now have a specific ongoing relationship with a doctor or team. There are new billing practices for accounts receivable and new collections systems are being analyzed. Productivity improved across all teams, and patient satisfaction improved due to reduced waiting times, staying open at lunch, and same day appointment systems. The rest of the ECG
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The current HSA administrator and current HSA medical director could have done most of the work performed by the hired consultants. The HSA should give credit to and utilize more of the skills of the county’s information technology and grant- writing employees, rather than hiring consultants. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The current staff does not have the expertise or the time to do all these additional grants and revenue projects that benefit the County and the community. Targeted consultation on specialized projects is used statewide to assist Health Departments with grants, new requirements, and initiatives. The test of its effectiveness is whether it works to deliver the product or program or funding desired. The performance of Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Hall on the basis of added value is clear upon review of their accomplishments. It is important to note that during the time that Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Hall worked at the Health Department consultants were also used for specific projects. 5 $955,965. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 99
R4:
The HSA should stop utilizing the services of ECG, the former HSA administrator, and the former HSA medical director. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. ECG has completed the work that HSA needed and no further work is anticipated at this time. If the need arises in the future for additional consultation services from ECG, a new contract will be submitted to the Board for approval. HSA will continue to use the highly skilled former HSA Administrator and HSA Medical Director on a project-by-project basis as needed. It is common practice in both government and private industry to use experts as consultants, and the value, utility and cost-effectiveness of this utilization speaks for itself. Letters have been received from the following persons expressing support for the County’s decisions to use expert consultants in expanding health care access and community services: (Grand Jury note: the letters are not included in this document. To view them go to the Grand Jury website.) Terry B. Lapid MD FACEP, FAAEM, Chairman, Santa Cruz County Emergency Medical Care Commission. Mark A. Riley, MPA, Executive Director, Dientes Community Dental Care. Wells Shoemaker MD, Medical Director, Physicians Medical Group of Santa Cruz County. Jennifer Hastings MD, Physician at Westside Health Center, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte. Debbie St. John RN, Center Manager, Westside Health Center, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte. Cynthia Mathews, Associate Vice-President for Public Affairs, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte.
F3:
The HSA used two out-of-state consultants (ECG and the former HSA administrator) for advice to set up the Medical Information System network. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. ECG did 98% of the work on the information technology implementation. Elinor Hall worked largely on revenue, grants, and legislative issues benefiting the County and community clinics.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The current HSA administrator and current HSA medical director could have done most of the work performed by the hired consultants. The HSA should give credit to and utilize more of the skills of the county’s information technology and grant- writing employees, rather than hiring consultants. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The current staff does not have the expertise or the time to do all these additional grants and revenue projects that benefit the County and the community. Targeted consultation on specialized projects is used statewide to assist Health Departments with grants, new requirements, and initiatives. The test of its effectiveness is whether it works to deliver the product or program or funding desired. The performance of Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Hall on the basis of added value is clear upon review of their accomplishments. It is important to note that during the time that Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Hall worked at the Health Department consultants were also used for specific projects. 5 $955,965. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 99
F4:
A former HSA Administrator and a former HSA Medical Director The former HSA administrator now acts as an independent healthcare consultant based in Oregon. The terms of her January 5, 2001 contract with Santa Cruz County indicated an hourly rate of $125. This consultant was to be reimbursed at this rate for hours worked and for travel time between Portland, Oregon and Santa Cruz. Additionally the contract states, “Compensation for necessary per diem, travel, mileage and other costs necessary to accomplish the work done under this agreement is included in the CONTRACTOR’S hourly rates. Travel to California shall be at COUNTY direction for purposes of supporting COUNTY issues.” The former HSA medical director contracted with the county to be paid $80/hour as a consultant. The appendix delineates the yearly payments and work projects of the former HSA administrator and the former HSA medical director. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. - 94 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s The Health Services Agency has used specialized consultants conservatively and in a manner similar to other Health Departments. Ms. Hall worked with County and safety net clinics to bring in over $3.5 million in new health revenues to the County while the County spent an average of $46,000 per year on her services, a tremendous return on investment. All of the start-up funds for the new Healthy Kids insurance product were raised by her foundation work on HSA’s behalf, and new opportunities for federal and state matching funds for local money raised for healthy kids insurance are in final phases of development. Her technical expertise included FQHC, Medi-Cal, Bureau of Primary Care grants and funding, Medi-Cal Administrative Funding, Targeted Case Management funding, federal waivers, and funding issues linked for federal designation such as physician shortage areas, etc. This expertise has proven invaluable over and over again in licensing, audit, and claim disputes as well as finding new funds for critical needs. The Federal Bureau of Primary Healthcare, the California Healthcare Foundation, Counties and other States have also found her assistance extremely valuable. In addition, with her knowledge of local issues and needs, little orientation was needed before grants and projects could be undertaken. Dr. Wolfe, the former medical director, has also been of great assistance to the County. He has worked on issues related to health policy and planning in the community and within HSA. He participated in planning, development and implementation of the Healthy Kids program, with special focus on ensuring provider participation. He has been the County’s lead person in responding to the problem of under-reimbursement of Santa Cruz County physicians participating in the Medicare program. He formed a coalition to respond to a request for proposals from the California Endowment, resulting in a $500,000 grant to Salud Para La Gente for a two-year program. He planned and facilitated the closure of the county- run prenatal clinics, with establishment of that service at Sutter, saving the county $30,000 per year. He helped develop successful funding grants for dental disease prevention. Internally, he updated and redrafted the HSA Illness and Injury Prevention Plan and the Bloodborne Pathogen Plan for the County. He helped develop the county’s plan for smallpox vaccination to medical and health personnel using Bioterrorism grant funds, and developed a panel of specialist consultants to deal with adverse reactions to smallpox vaccination. Dr. Wolfe’s many years of experience in the county and his reputation and relationships with local and state health professionals have made his contributions very valuable. His health planning activities are eligible for state and federal Medi-Cal administrative claiming reimbursement. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 95
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The current HSA administrator and current HSA medical director could have done most of the work performed by the hired consultants. The HSA should give credit to and utilize more of the skills of the county’s information technology and grant- writing employees, rather than hiring consultants. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The current staff does not have the expertise or the time to do all these additional grants and revenue projects that benefit the County and the community. Targeted consultation on specialized projects is used statewide to assist Health Departments with grants, new requirements, and initiatives. The test of its effectiveness is whether it works to deliver the product or program or funding desired. The performance of Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Hall on the basis of added value is clear upon review of their accomplishments. It is important to note that during the time that Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Hall worked at the Health Department consultants were also used for specific projects. 5 $955,965. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 99
R4:
The HSA should stop utilizing the services of ECG, the former HSA administrator, and the former HSA medical director. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. ECG has completed the work that HSA needed and no further work is anticipated at this time. If the need arises in the future for additional consultation services from ECG, a new contract will be submitted to the Board for approval. HSA will continue to use the highly skilled former HSA Administrator and HSA Medical Director on a project-by-project basis as needed. It is common practice in both government and private industry to use experts as consultants, and the value, utility and cost-effectiveness of this utilization speaks for itself. Letters have been received from the following persons expressing support for the County’s decisions to use expert consultants in expanding health care access and community services: (Grand Jury note: the letters are not included in this document. To view them go to the Grand Jury website.) Terry B. Lapid MD FACEP, FAAEM, Chairman, Santa Cruz County Emergency Medical Care Commission. Mark A. Riley, MPA, Executive Director, Dientes Community Dental Care. Wells Shoemaker MD, Medical Director, Physicians Medical Group of Santa Cruz County. Jennifer Hastings MD, Physician at Westside Health Center, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte. Debbie St. John RN, Center Manager, Westside Health Center, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte. Cynthia Mathews, Associate Vice-President for Public Affairs, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte.
F5:
A Summary of the Cost of the Health Services Agency’s Three Consultants YEAR ECG Former HSA Former HSA Yearly Total Administrator Medical Director 2000-2001 $130,000 $13,125 $49,320 $192,445 2001-2002 $85,000 $59,844 $61,620 $206,464 2002-2003 $268,000 $88,281 $60,840 $417,121 2003-1/2004 $114,565 $12,250 $13,120 $139,935 Total $597,565 $173,500 $184,900 $955,965 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The HSA should stop utilizing the services of ECG, the former HSA administrator, and the former HSA medical director. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. ECG has completed the work that HSA needed and no further work is anticipated at this time. If the need arises in the future for additional consultation services from ECG, a new contract will be submitted to the Board for approval. HSA will continue to use the highly skilled former HSA Administrator and HSA Medical Director on a project-by-project basis as needed. It is common practice in both government and private industry to use experts as consultants, and the value, utility and cost-effectiveness of this utilization speaks for itself. Letters have been received from the following persons expressing support for the County’s decisions to use expert consultants in expanding health care access and community services: (Grand Jury note: the letters are not included in this document. To view them go to the Grand Jury website.) Terry B. Lapid MD FACEP, FAAEM, Chairman, Santa Cruz County Emergency Medical Care Commission. Mark A. Riley, MPA, Executive Director, Dientes Community Dental Care. Wells Shoemaker MD, Medical Director, Physicians Medical Group of Santa Cruz County. Jennifer Hastings MD, Physician at Westside Health Center, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte. Debbie St. John RN, Center Manager, Westside Health Center, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte. Cynthia Mathews, Associate Vice-President for Public Affairs, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte.
F6:
Funding Sources to Pay the former HSA Administrator and the former HSA Medical Director: A. The source of the funds to pay for the former HSA administrator and the former HSA medical director is less clear than that for ECG. The HSA gave these answers on the funding sources for these consultants who were identified as independent contractors: “Each year in the budget there are line items for various [independent] contractors.” The former HSA administrator and the former HSA medical director “had contracts approved by the Board [of Supervisors].” “In building the budget, HSA identifies and puts in amounts for ongoing [independent] contractors. These amounts were in the original budgets and augmented if needed for new activities with appropriate approvals from the CAO’s [Chief Administrative Officer] office and/or Board if using new appropriations or transfers. Contractors are never allowed infinite amounts of funds. These are negotiated and approved in advance.” The grants written by the former HSA administrator “(CAP, HCAP, and others) include routinely 10% for administration.” Given that the former HSA administrator “brought into Health [HSA] approximately $3.5 million in funds, she was able to pay for her time out of admin (administration) funds.”3 B. According to the HSA, the former HSA medical director may have “charged some of his time to the Bioterrorism grants but otherwise to our central admin [administration] distribution. Central admin is charged out to all of our funding sources through the programs. Approximately 15% of the 3 The Health Services Agency gave the Grand Jury two figures. The second figure was $6,160,000 with no explanation. The correct figure is closer to $3 million. The CAP and HCAP grants awards totaled $2,582,870. - 96 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s funds are County and the rest are Medicaid, Medicare, grants, and various state and federal allocations.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. Funding for Ms. Hall is from a variety of different revenues from central administration. Some hours were eligible for reimbursement from administration categories in the CAP grant. Other hours are eligible for reimbursement through the Medi-Cal Administrative Claim (federal/state). The balance of funds are from state realignment and county funds. Dr. Wolfe’s time related to health planning was reimbursed through Medi-Cal administrative claiming. Dr. Wolfe did also have a specific number of hours dedicated to smallpox immunizations from a federal grant. The balance is State realignment funds and County funds. The work Dr. Wolfe is doing on Medicare reimbursement rates (locality 99) will improve reimbursement for the whole County and result in $4-5 million in new revenues for community clinics and physicians. It will also help with recruitment and retention of physicians.
F7:
Over the past 20 years, the Board of Supervisors has allocated the same amount of money to the Medi-Cruz program. HSA has developed increasingly more stringent eligibility criteria for Medi-Cruz patients. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The County has increased funding by approximately $1.5 million over the last 20 years. The State has basically kept the program flat with increases of approximately 1% per year while medical inflation has been 6-12% per year. If adjusted for medical inflation over the last 20 years, the MediCruz program would have a budget of $17 million from the State allocation instead of the current amount of approximately $5 million. Conclusions
F8:
Some of the former HSA medical director’s compensation came from funds derived from patient revenues, which could have been used for indigent medical care.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
A priority should be to prevent decreased medical care available to indigents. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County finds the findings above that relate to this goal inaccurate in terms of increasing services for indigents.
R5:
The HSA stated to the Board of Supervisors that the HSA’s primary mission is to protect the community from communicable diseases and health issues that threaten the community. If so, the HSA should be more concerned about medical care of the indigents of Santa Cruz County. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. HSA is very concerned with the medical care of indigents and delivers services to this population to the extent that resources are available. The fact that the need for services exceeds the resources available does not mean that HSA is any less concerned about care to indigents.
F9:
The Medicare reimbursement project done by the former HSA medical director largely benefits private physicians because county clinics see very few Medicare patients. The HSA and the Board of Supervisors accepted the argument used by the Santa Cruz Medical Foundation (SCMF) that an increase in Medicare reimbursement rates would increase physician retention in the community and would benefit the HSA. The SCMF did not guarantee increased county indigent care, if the former HSA medical director helped its campaign. By working with the SCMF, the HSA spent county monies to enrich SCMF, not the county. On another occasion, the Health Services Agency did not give full credit to the employee who wrote a report for the HSA. - 98 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
A priority should be to prevent decreased medical care available to indigents. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County finds the findings above that relate to this goal inaccurate in terms of increasing services for indigents.
R5:
The HSA stated to the Board of Supervisors that the HSA’s primary mission is to protect the community from communicable diseases and health issues that threaten the community. If so, the HSA should be more concerned about medical care of the indigents of Santa Cruz County. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. HSA is very concerned with the medical care of indigents and delivers services to this population to the extent that resources are available. The fact that the need for services exceeds the resources available does not mean that HSA is any less concerned about care to indigents.
R6:
The HSA and the Board of Supervisors should review more carefully proposals from the Santa Cruz Medical Foundation. - 100 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation implies that proposals submitted by the Santa Cruz Medical Foundation to HSA and the Board of Supervisors were not carefully reviewed, which is not the case. The Santa Cruz Medical Foundation has not submitted proposals to the County. The proposals submitted to the County by Sutter Health dealt with the Access to Medical Care Agreement. The Health Services Agency and the Board of Supervisors reviewed these proposals carefully, and they were presented in public forums subject to public comment. Santa Cruz Medical Foundation is not a party to this Agreement, as it merely provides support services for many of the physicians that are on staff at the Sutter Maternity and Surgery Center.
F10:
The HSA deleted two county physicians’ positions, while spending almost a million dollars on consultants.5 The shift of the chief of clinical services to the position of chief of detention services left the county clinics with no chief until that position is filled.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Health Services Agency Physicians’ Association should be commended for pointing out the human and economic costs of physician lay-offs. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. All the staff in Clinics and Administration who work on improving indigent care should be commended.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.