Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2005-2006
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 (5)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 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. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
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. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
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. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
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. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County appreciates and concurs with the Grand Jury’s commendation.
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 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 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. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. In comparing the budgets across counties, it is important to keep in mind that there is significant variation from county to county in the amount of revenue available from taxes, fees and other county-specific sources to supplement the state’s allocation for CWS.
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County of Santa Cruz should explore other options for obtaining additional money to supplement Child Welfare Services funds. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented. The HRA budget approved by the Board of Supervisors in June 2005 provided for the addition of five new social work positions, a social work supervisor, and a program manager to the Family and Children’s Services Division. HRA, in collaboration with public and private agency partners, regularly explores various options for obtaining additional money to supplement CWS funds. For example, in FY 2004/05, HRA collaborated with the Health Services Agency Alcohol and Drug Program to apply successfully for approximately $100,000 of state funds to operate a Dependency Drug Court program to provide specialized services to alcohol and drug-abusing parents of children under age 5 who are in out-of-home placement due to parental neglect or abuse. In the first quarter of FY 2005/06, HRA has applied for nearly $1 million in State Child Welfare Services Outcome Improvement funds, and $1.9 million in federal funds under the Abandoned Infants Act to provide specialized prevention/early intervention services to substance-abusing families with young children. The Board of Supervisors and HRA are committed to improving and enhancing services to Santa Cruz County’s families and children, and will continue to work together to seek out opportunities to do so.
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
35 findings
F1:
The staff is professional and well trained in the day-to-day functioning of the institution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should continue to work on solutions to address jail overcrowding. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. This recommendation has been implemented. A committee to address jail overcrowding has been established that includes judges, Probation, the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender, the Health Services Agency, State Parole, County Counsel and others to review the existing processes and develop recommendations to reduce jail overcrowding. The board approved an additional $313,163 for 2005-06 to fund jail alternatives and to increase pre-trial services. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented. The Sheriff's Office has an ongoing overcrowding committee facilitated by the Detention Bureau that regularly reports to the Board of Supervisors. - 8 Santa Cruz County Jails Review
F2:
The facility, though old, is well maintained, clean and well managed by the staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should take action to increase the pay scale for the detention nursing staff. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. This recommendation will be evaluated as part of the employee bargaining process, which is currently in process.
F3:
The number of nurses on staff is inadequate for the current jail population.
Related Recommendations (1)
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. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES. This recommendation requires further analysis. Operating a medical clinic at Rountree would be very costly, and those costs must be evaluated along with the other options being considered by the jail overcrowding committee.
F4:
The present method of dispensing medication is not cost effective.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Main Jail should adopt “bubble” packaging for dispensing medication to save money. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented in August of 2005.
F5:
The Main Jail continues to face overcrowding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Jail administrators and staff should be commended for the care and integrity they apply toward the running of this institution.
F6:
The grievance procedure allows inmates the opportunity to express their concerns, and the staff responds in a timely fashion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Main Jail should continue to conduct the inmate grievance procedure in the fair and well-documented manner they currently employ. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES. The recommendation has been implemented, and the policy has been updated in June of 2005. Rountree Medium Security Findings
F7:
Rountree is a well-run facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Rountree is a well-run facility.
F8:
Rountree inmates can benefit from a variety of programs and educational opportunities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Rountree inmates can benefit from a variety of programs and educational opportunities.
F9:
The grievance procedures are due for a review and possible update.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The grievance procedures are due for a review and possible update.
F10:
The staff at Rountree performs its duties in a professional manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Closing the medical facility resulted in otherwise eligible inmates being housed in the Main Jail facility because of prescription drug needs. Recommendations
F12:
The Blaine Street Jail buildings and grounds are attractive and well maintained.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The staff should be commended for their attractive and well-run facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The county appreciates and concurs with the Grand Jury’s commendation. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES. - 14 Santa Cruz County Jails Review The recommendation has been implemented. In July 2005, the Board of Corrections completed a bi-annual inspection of the Blaine Street Facility and commented that it was well run, clean and could be looked at as a model for other facilities. Juvenile Hall Findings
F13:
The facility is well staffed, and staff appears to be attuned to the needs of the inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The Home Electronic Monitoring Program should be continued as it reduces the facility population.
F14:
There is a variety of useful activities available to the inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Board of Supervisors should budget money to upgrade the security system to include security cameras and electronic doors. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. - 16 Santa Cruz County Jails Review This recommendation is being implemented. Funds allocated in 2004-05 have been carried over into 2005-06 to complete a review of the security system and begin preliminary upgrades to that system.
F15:
Juvenile Hall is well managed with a caring and diverse staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
Juvenile Hall is well managed with a caring and diverse staff.
F16:
The Juvenile Hall buildings and grounds are well maintained.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
The Juvenile Hall buildings and grounds are well maintained.
F17:
Construction of a closed gymnasium would allow for adequate physical activity during poor weather.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
The heating and ventilation system in Juvenile Hall is inadequate. Recommendations
F21:
The California Youth Authority Camp facility was well managed by a professional and well-trained staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R23:
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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
F39:
The Board of Corrections’ rated capacity is 42 inmates. As of May 4, 2005, the facility had 22 inmates. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES.
F40:
There have been six escapes (walkaways) in the past year. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES.
F41:
There have been no deaths in the past year. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES.
F42:
Fire drills are held monthly. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES.
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. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES.
F44:
Meals are prepared by inmates from menus provided by the county dietitian. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. Inmate meals are prepared by inmate kitchen workers under the direction of jail kitchen staff who follow a menu prepared by the county dietician. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office PARTIALLY AGREES. Inmate meals are prepared by inmate kitchen workers under the direction of jail kitchen staff who follow a menu prepared by the county dietician. - 12 Santa Cruz County Jails Review
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. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES.
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, it is discussed with the director. Grievances are usually handled upon receipt of the form. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES.
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. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 13 Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES.
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. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES.
F49:
There is one officer on duty for all shifts, 24 hours a day. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Along with the full-time, on-duty officer, a supervising correctional officer is on duty Monday through Thursday during business hours. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office PARTIALLY AGREES. Along with one full-time, on-duty officer, a supervising correctional officer is on duty Monday through Thursday during business hours. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
38
Not linked to specific findings.
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. Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 9 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. Many inmates who require daily medical injections need additional medical services and could not be housed at Rountree even with an on-site nurse at the facility. While it is possible that an on-site nurse at Rountree might mean that a certain number of inmates could be housed at Rountree rather than the Main Jail, that number is unknown. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office PARTIALLY AGREES. The on-site nursing position would help to 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. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office AGREES.
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.
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 - 10 Santa Cruz County Jails Review • 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.
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; Santa Cruz County Jails Review - 15 • 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. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The county agrees that there is no air conditioning and that the heating system should be replaced. Replacement of these systems has been identified for future funding.
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. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Security issues within the Juvenile Hall remain a priority. The need for electronic doors, as well as cameras, monitors and other security-related equipment, is currently being reviewed by a consulting firm. Some funds have been set aside to address Juvenile Hall security. 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
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
As of March 12, 2005, there were 1,183 entries on the waiting list. The list is divided into separate queues based on the size and type of slip desired. On the date we took a snapshot of the waiting list the size of each queue was as follows: Queue Name Description Count AA371 New 37’ and 40’ slips 14 L.HAR.24 24’ slips in the lower harbor 37 L.HAR.30 30’ slips in the lower harbor 108 L.HAR.40 40’ slips in the lower harbor 134 L.HAR.50 50’ slips in the lower harbor 27 L.HAR.60 60’ slips in the lower harbor 14 MULTIHUL Multi-hull slips 7 STANDBY Standby List 519 U.HAR.20 20’ slips in the upper harbor 19 U.HAR.25 25’ slips in the upper harbor 71 1 Recently the Port Commission created the new waiting list category AA-37. This is a category for new slips currently under construction. When completed, there will be two 37’ slips and two 40’ slips. These new slips will rent for 1.7 times the regular slip rate; the additional cost is to pay for the construction. Santa Cruz County Port District - 3 2004 – 2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury U.HAR.30 30’ slips in the upper harbor 116 U.HAR.35 35’ slips in the upper harbor 46 U.HAR.40 40’ slips in the upper harbor 48 WIDE45UH 45’ slips for wide boats in the 10 upper harbor Y.C.DRY Yacht Club dry dock space 13 Total 1,183 Response: Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) PARTIALLY AGREES. Within its statutory authority under state law concerning regulation of the Port District’s boundaries, LAFCO does not have first-hand access to the Port District’s waiting list records or administrative procedures, nor does LAFCO typically maintain this level of operating information for districts and cities. Therefore, LAFCO defers to the Port District to respond directly to this finding. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners AGREE.
F2:
The policies, ordinances and procedures that govern the existence and operation of the boat slip waiting list are not documented in a single location. Documents other than the Port District pamphlet, “Waiting List Procedures,” contain information and procedures relevant to the operation of the slip waiting list. These include the documents listed in the Sources section of this report. Response: LAFCO PARTIALLY AGREES. Within its statutory authority under state law concerning regulation of the Port District’s boundaries, LAFCO does not have first-hand access to the Port District’s waiting list records or administrative procedures, nor does LAFCO typically maintain this level of operating information for districts and cities. Therefore, LAFCO defers to the Port District to respond directly to this finding. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners AGREE.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All of the ordinances, policies and procedures that govern the existence and operation of the boat slip waiting list should be documented in a single publication that is readily available to the boating public. This should include the details of less well- documented provisions like the Standby Queue. These should also be published electronically on the Port District web site. Response: LAFCO PARTIALLY AGREES. The implementation of this recommendation is the responsibility of the Port District. It is not within the jurisdiction of LAFCO. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners AGREE. Staff will create an index of Port District ordinances, policies and programs, which will be divided into sections relating to slip acceptance, with sub-headings of all applicable information (for example: pertinent ordinance section, or name of brochure, etc.). The waiting list brochure will be expanded to contain information on the standby list, as well as a list of other related brochure topics.
F3:
The Port Commission can pre-empt the waiting list and assign a slip to someone not on the waiting list. This is done only after public discussion at an open Port Commission meeting using normal voting procedures. Discussion and actions are recorded in the meeting minutes. This procedure is for special situations and is rarely used. Response: LAFCO PARTIALLY AGREES. Within its statutory authority under state law concerning regulation of the Port District’s boundaries, LAFCO does not have first-hand access to the Port District’s waiting list records or administrative procedures, nor does LAFCO typically - 4 Santa Cruz County Port District 2004-2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury maintain this level of operating information for districts and cities. Therefore, LAFCO defers to the Port District to respond directly to this finding. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners AGREE.
F4:
The Port District publishes part of the waiting list on its web site, http://www.santacruzharbor.org/. Only the names of the top ten applicants in each queue are published on the Harbor web site. Response: LAFCO PARTIALLY AGREES. Within its statutory authority under state law concerning regulation of the Port District’s boundaries, LAFCO does not have first-hand access to the Port District’s waiting list records or administrative procedures, nor does LAFCO typically maintain this level of operating information for districts and cities. Therefore, LAFCO defers to the Port District to respond directly to this finding. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners AGREE.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The visibility of the waiting list should be improved by publishing all non-personal data associated with the entire list on the Port District’s web site and in printed form in the Harbor office available for public review. Published information should include waiting list transactions such as: • additions to the list • transfers between queues • drops from the list • slip offers along with acceptances and rejections Response: LAFCO PARTIALLY AGREES. The implementation of this recommendation is the responsibility of the Port District. It is not within the jurisdiction of LAFCO. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners PARTIALLY AGREE. Since January 2005, the Port District web site (www.santa.cruzharbor.org) lists the top 10 individuals on each waiting list, along with the disposition of activity by each individual throughout the slip offering process. The commission will consider investment to enhance the harbor web site to include the ability for staff to easily post full waiting lists. Since the existing software program does not allow for anyone to be on more than one waiting list at a time, it is not our opinion that “all” transfers between lists (beyond the top 10 individuals) must be indicated and tracked. The existing program is self-limiting.
F5:
The Standby Queue is unique: • “A Standby List has been created for those individuals who know they will not be able to accept a berth in the near future.”2 In other words, people who are offered a slip but cannot accept it at that time remain in the queue. • In practice, the Standby Queue is a general purpose list for people who don’t know what size slip they will require. Those in the Standby Queue can change to another list when their requirements are known. • Slip holders may also be in the Standby Queue to wait for a different slip. Slip holders retain their seniority date in the Standby Queue even after being given a slip. • Any individual or entity can remain on the waiting list in any queue indefinitely, as long as the annual fee of $85 is paid. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners AGREE.
F6:
Once a slip becomes available and is offered to someone on the waiting list, that person must be able to enter into a legal contract. However, there is no age requirement for individuals to submit an application and remain on the waiting list. Even school-age children can be on the list in anticipation of getting a slip. Response: LAFCO PARTIALLY AGREES. Within its statutory authority under state law concerning regulation of the Port District’s boundaries, LAFCO does not have first-hand access to the Port District’s waiting list records or administrative procedures, nor does LAFCO typically 2 “Waiting List Procedures,” Santa Cruz County Port District publication. Santa Cruz County Port District - 5 2004 – 2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury maintain this level of operating information for districts and cities. Therefore, LAFCO defers to the Port District to respond directly to this finding.
F7:
The Port District uses a commercial software package, “Marina Manager,” from Timeless Technologies in Prince Edward Island, Canada. This software manages the data associated with the waiting list.3 The software tracks slip holders and visitors, dues and fees paid and owing, emergency contact information, emergency medical information, employees and volunteers. It does not specifically track waiting lists. Response: LAFCO PARTIALLY AGREES. Within its statutory authority under state law concerning regulation of the Port District’s boundaries, LAFCO does not have first-hand access to the Port District’s waiting list records or administrative procedures, nor does LAFCO typically maintain this level of operating information for districts and cities. Therefore, LAFCO defers to the Port District to respond directly to this finding. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners PARTIALLY AGREE. The Marina Management software program has been customized for the Santa Cruz Port District to specifically meet the needs of our unique waiting list system. The Port District believes the software program, as written, is sufficient.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Other software packages that can address the intricacies of the Santa Cruz Port District’s multi-queue system should be evaluated. Response: LAFCO PARTIALLY AGREES. The implementation of this recommendation is the responsibility of the Port District. It is not within the jurisdiction of LAFCO. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners AGREE. - 8 Santa Cruz County Port District 2004-2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Other software packages that could address the intricacies of the Port District’s waiting list system will be evaluated.
F8:
To support berthing requirements for commercial fishermen, the Port Commission authorized a Fishery Allocation Program. This program allows for certain slips (near the commercial wholesale fishery complex) to be held by commercial fishermen based on their gross annual fish catch. These slips are awarded on a competitive basis, with the highest catch getting highest priority for the slip. All commercial fishermen in these slips are audited by the Harbormaster each year to determine if they are meeting their minimum-catch criteria. The minimum criteria to hold a slip is $200 per foot of vessel length, thus a 30’ vessel must have a minimum catch of $6,000/year to maintain the slip. The commission reviewed this program at a public meeting approximately one year ago. Response: LAFCO PARTIALLY AGREES. Within its statutory authority under state law concerning regulation of the Port District’s boundaries, LAFCO does not have first-hand access to the Port District’s waiting list records or administrative procedures, nor does LAFCO typically maintain this level of operating information for districts and cities. Therefore, LAFCO defers to the Port District to respond directly to this finding. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners AGREE. Information about the software is available on the internet at: http://www.marina-management- software.com/index.htm. - 6 Santa Cruz County Port District 2004-2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
F9:
Inside-tie spaces are on the inside portion of the dock, along the shoreline, in the north/upper harbor. They are not part of the regular paid waiting list process. Because each vessel has unique requirements (length, beam and draft), these spaces are allocated on a case-by-case basis. They rent for the regular rate based on the vessel length. To apply for an inside-tie space, applicants give their name, vessel length, beam (width) and draft (depth) to the Senior Deputy Harbormaster in charge of space administration in the north/upper harbor. He reviews spaces when they become available and assigns an appropriate space. Response: LAFCO PARTIALLY AGREES. Within its statutory authority under state law concerning regulation of the Port District’s boundaries, LAFCO does not have first-hand access to the Port District’s waiting list records or administrative procedures, nor does LAFCO typically maintain this level of operating information for districts and cities. Therefore, LAFCO defers to the Port District to respond directly to this finding. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners AGREE.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The procedure for getting an inside-tie space should be formalized and documented. Those at the front of the various queues should be given priority for inside-tie spaces over others who are not on the waiting list. Response: LAFCO PARTIALLY AGREES. The implementation of this recommendation is the responsibility of the Port District. It is not within the jurisdiction of LAFCO. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners AGREE. Staff will organize the applicants onto a computerized spreadsheet indicating the applicant’s name, waiting list date, and required space size (with vessel draft, beam, length, vessel type). This list is free of charge to the customer due to the fact that there is not a high demand for space, and the wait is less than one year (as is the dry storage and rack storage); however, if the wait grows to considerably longer than one year, this list may be converted to the regular, paid waiting list system. Santa Cruz County Port District - 9 2004 – 2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
F10:
Individuals on the waiting list complete and sign a form. They are given the waiting list date (seniority date) based on the date payment is received in the harbor office. Response: LAFCO PARTIALLY AGREES. Within its statutory authority under state law concerning regulation of the Port District’s boundaries, LAFCO does not have first-hand access to the Port District’s waiting list records or administrative procedures, nor does LAFCO typically maintain this level of operating information for districts and cities. Therefore, LAFCO defers to the Port District to respond directly to this finding. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners AGREE. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
The Port District should be praised for managing a complex system involving many boaters with varied requirements. Response: LAFCO AGREES. The Port District is doing a commendable job in managing the limited number of slip spaces at the harbor. This recommendation does not require any specific implementation. To review LAFCO’s recent evaluation of the Port District’s services, see the “Other Services” chapter of the Countywide Service Review, which is available at the Santa Cruz and Watsonville main libraries and online at: http://santacruzlafco.org/CSR.html. Response: Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners AGREE. The Santa Cruz County Port District and Commissioners thank the Grand Jury for its commendation.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency, Community Health and Prevention Programs, acting as the Local Lead Agency (LLA), receives Proposition 99 funds in three-year funding cycles. In the present funding cycle for Fiscal Years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, a total of $450,000, or $150,000 per year, is projected. This amount is based on population, with $150,000 being the smallest amount a county could receive. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F2:
The budget for the present three-year funding cycle is outlined as follows:2 Budget Section FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Total Personnel Costs $ 75,622 $ 89,336 $ 90,859 $ 255,817 Fringe Benefits @35-42% $ 30,249 $ 35,734 $ 35,435 $ 101,418 Operating Expenses $ 2,000 $ 1,500 $ 500 $ 4,000 Equipment Expenses $ 2,700 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2,700 Travel/Per Diem and Training $ 4,000 $ 2,169 $ 3,900 $ 10,069 Subcontracts and Consultants $ 12,000 $ 1,000 $ 0 $ 13,000 Other Costs $ 5,762 $ 1,500 $ 362 $ 7,624 Indirect Expenses @14-15% $ 17,667 $ 18,761 $ 18,944 $ 55,372 Total Expenses $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000 Table 1. Budget for Fiscal Year 2004-05 through Fiscal Year 2006-07 for the Tobacco Education Program. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F3:
The California Department of Health Service’s document titled “Local Lead Agency Guidelines for a 2004-2007 Comprehensive Tobacco Control Plan, January 6, 2004” sets forth strict operating, program and budget guidelines for LLAs.3 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Tobacco Education Program, Budget Justification for Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency. California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, “Local Lead Agency Guidelines for a 2004-2007 Comprehensive Tobacco Control Plan, Issued January 6, 2004.” Where There’s Smoke, There’s Funding: - 27
F4:
The Tobacco Education Program in Santa Cruz County must follow the state’s strict budget and spending guidelines in order to receive funding and be reimbursed for expenditures. Any tobacco education activity funded by Proposition 99 must be approved in advance by the state. The LLA then sends a cost report to the state for reimbursement. The state oversees spending of the funds, which must be spent on required objectives. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F5:
Santa Cruz County has not been formally audited for its expenditures of Tobacco Education Proposition 99 monies. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F6:
The “Scope of Work” of the Santa Cruz Tobacco Education Program for the term 7/1/04 to 6/30/2007 includes well-defined activities, start and end dates for each activity, responsible parties for each activity and tracking measures. Its objectives are to: • reduce exposure to secondhand smoke in public places; • reduce retail availability of tobacco; • review the extent to which LLA and TCS-funded projects address specific objectives of cultural or ethnic/minority communities or populations; and • counter pro-tobacco influences such as tobacco sponsorships of public, private and sporting events; tobacco company contributions to education, research, public health, cultural and intellectual activities. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F7:
The Tobacco Education Program is the repository for tobacco information for the community, and it: • recruits, maintains and organizes the Tobacco Education Coalition. The Coalition takes action on tobacco industry activities in the community, proposes legislation and advocates for Proposition 10 monies to be spent on tobacco-related issues. The Tobacco Education Coalition meets monthly. • stays current on local and statewide tobacco-related events. The Tobacco Education Program makes public statements and answers questions and concerns from the public, media and other agencies regarding tobacco issues. • fields calls from the public, sends materials, maintains a list of current cessation services in the county, stays current with tobacco-related laws or policies in the five jurisdictions and creates anti-tobacco curriculum ideas for teachers. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. - 28 Where There’s Smoke, There’s Funding:
F8:
The Tobacco Education Coalition, formed in 1985, is an advocacy group that promotes a tobacco-free lifestyle and environment. The Tobacco Education Coalition membership includes the following government and community non-profit agencies:4 American Cancer Society American Heart Association American Lung Association Cabrillo College Student Health Center Central Coast Alliance for Health Children and Families First City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation City of Santa Cruz Police Department Community Connections ETR Associates Front Street, Inc. Individual community members at large (10 members) Katz Cancer Resource Center Medical Works Mental Health Client Action Network Mountain Community Resources Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance (three members) Planned Parenthood Salud Para la Gente San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District Santa Cruz City Schools District (two members) Santa Cruz County Medical Society Santa Cruz County Office of Education Santa Cruz County Parks and Recreation Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department (two members) Substance Abuse Prevention Program Tobacco Education Clearinghouse of California 4 Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency, Tobacco Education Program, “Coalition Membership.” Where There’s Smoke, There’s Funding: - 29 Tobacco Education Program (three members) University of California, Santa Cruz Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Program Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F9:
Some of the recent accomplishments of the Tobacco Education Coalition are: • promoting compliance with smoke-free workplace laws; • working with the Seaside Company to make the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk a smoke-free environment; • conducting surveillance of local newspapers for print tobacco advertisements and writing letters, when appropriate, to ask each organization to adopt a smoke-free advertising policy; • conducting media campaigns about smoke-free playgrounds, cigarette sales to minors and other tobacco issues; • supporting Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance efforts to create 100 percent smoke-free parks in Watsonville via letters to the editor and letters to Watsonville City Council members; • working with local jurisdictions on smoking ordinances; • writing letters to various agencies to discourage acceptance of tobacco industry grant monies; • reducing the number of stores that sell tobacco to minors and providing education materials to discourage self-service tobacco displays. In 2002, the Coalition supported a self-service tobacco display ban that was adopted in the City of Capitola; and • surveying Santa Cruz County bars regarding compliance with smoking ordinances. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County’s Tobacco Education Program is to be commended for its success in reducing tobacco use and lessening exposure to secondhand smoke. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The county concurs with the Grand Jury’s commendation.
F10:
California’s adult smoking rate dropped to a historic low of 15.4 percent in 2004, compared to 22.8 percent in 1988 (a 32.5 percent decrease) when California voters passed Proposition 99.5 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F11:
Comprehensive local and school-based tobacco education programs have been credited as key factors in statewide smoking reductions.6 5 News Release: “California Smoking Rates Drop 33 Percent Since State’s Anti-Tobacco Program Began,” February 2005, http://www.dhs.ca.gov. News Release: “California Smoking Rates Drop 33 Percent Since State’s Anti-Tobacco Program Began,” February 2005, http://www.dhs.ca.gov. - 30 Where There’s Smoke, There’s Funding: Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F12:
From 1994 to 2002, student tobacco use has decreased in Santa Cruz County as illustrated in the following table:7 Percentage of Age Group Stating That They Year Have Used Tobacco 9th Graders 11th Graders 1994 65% 64% 2002 31% 40% Table 2. Percentages of Santa Cruz County 9th and 11th Graders Stating That They Have Used Tobacco. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F13:
Surveys done in 2002 and 2003 show adult smoking rates continue to decrease in Santa Cruz County.8 Do you now smoke cigarettes every day, some days or not at all? Everyday Some Days Not At All 2002 19.5% 6.9% 73.6% 2003 18.9% 6.2% 74.8% Table 3. Adult Cigarette Smoking Rates, Santa Cruz County. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. CHIP Funds
F14:
In order to receive California Healthcare for the Indigent Program (CHIP) funds from the state, Santa Cruz County must submit an application to the California Department of Health Services and agree to abide by strict state guidelines. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F15:
In 1998-99, Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency received over $1.1 million in Proposition 99 monies that went to CHIP. By 2002-03, that amount had dwindled to $314,111, then dropped to $68,933 in 2003-04. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. 7Community Assessment Project, Comprehensive Report, 2004, http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/products/CAP10_Health.pdf. Community Assessment Project, Comprehensive Report, 2004, http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/products/CAP10_Health.pdf. Where There’s Smoke, There’s Funding: - 31
F16:
CHIP funds received by Santa Cruz County from Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Fiscal Year 2003-04 are summarized as follows:9 Fiscal Year Allocation CHIP Account 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Total Hospital $363,822 $233,984 $64,500 Total Physician $14,624 0 0 Total Other $56,970 $80,127 $4,433 Total CHIP $435,416 $314,111 $68,933 Table 4. CHIP Allocations for Santa Cruz County for Fiscal Year 2001-02 through Fiscal Year 2003-04. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F17:
For Fiscal Year 2004-05, the CHIP allocation from Proposition 99 for Santa Cruz County was $77,214. These funds were appropriated in April 2005 and were not anticipated in the current year’s budget. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F18:
According to health services personnel, due to the strict, cumbersome and staff- intensive state reporting requirements, receiving a CHIP allocation of less than $35,000 would not be cost effective for the county. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F19:
The State of California deposits money into county revenue accounts and/or trust funds. When claims are made, the money is pulled from the trust fund accounts, goes into the general fund, then is paid out. Charges are made before money comes out of the trust fund. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F20:
The Medi-Cruz Program within the Health Services Agency pays for indigent care, and CHIP money is expended from that division’s budget. The Health Services Agency receives claims from the hospitals and physicians for indigent care. Available CHIP funds are used to help pay the claims until the funds are exhausted. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. California Healthcare for Indigents Program, CHIP Funding History, provided by Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency, May 4, 2005. - 32 Where There’s Smoke, There’s Funding:
F21:
CHIP funds going to Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital and Watsonville Community Hospital and physicians involve contracts. Some contracts are blended and may contain some Proposition 99 money as well as other funding sources. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F22:
The current budget for the Medi-Cruz program is $4.5 million. Although the current $77,214 CHIP allocation is a small part of that budget, county health officials felt it would still be beneficial to receive the money. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
F23:
Despite the continuing decrease in CHIP allocation, Santa Cruz County has used county overmatch and realignment funds to keep the Medi-Cruz program viable. Approximately 8,000 to 9,000 patients annually receive care paid by Medi-Cruz funds. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County is to be commended for successfully using Proposition 99 funds for indigent medical care and for its efforts to keep the Medi-Cruz program intact. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The county appreciates the Grand Jury’s commendation. Where There’s Smoke, There’s Funding: - 33