Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2008-2009
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 (21)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Purchase orders account for the vast majority of county spending but are the most expensive method of acquisition. In 2008 nearly $28 million in purchases were processed via purchase orders at a cost of over $500,000. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES Purchasing Division salary and expenditures include more than purchase order tasks. The Purchasing Division work involving contracts account for the vast majority of county spending through the process of bidding, legal review and processing of payments. Purchase orders account for a significant spend, but not the major dollars that contracts represent. Other tasks performed by the Purchasing Division include Living Wage tracking/reporting, Master Contract Agreements and bidding of other department contracts and surplus property disposal.
F2:
Purchasing indicates that a standard industry goal is to maintain processing costs in the $60-$100 range above the cost of goods per purchase order. However, it appears, based on review of the County of Santa Cruz Cost Allocation Plan, that our County’s cost greatly exceeds that range. In 2003-2004, 2,620 purchase orders were processed at a cost of $184 per order. In 2004-2005, 2,570 purchase orders were processed at a cost of $196 per order. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – PARTIALLY DISAGREES The Purchasing Division has the expertise to determine the standard industry range for purchase orders and on this statement. We do not agree or disagree. We disagree with the costs provided to process a purchase order and disagree that the Santa Cruz County Cost Allocation Plan (the Plan) is able to provide information to calculate that cost. The Grand Jury based its calculations on information annually 28 For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Each county LAFCO operates independently and may adopt local policies. [LAFCO 101] Response: LAFCO – AGREES
F2:
LAFCO, through Municipal Service and Sphere-of-Influence reviews, may hold special districts accountable for meeting community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. [Government Code 56439(a)(5)] Response: LAFCO – PARTIALLY AGREES There is no Government Code Section 56439(a)(5). Government Code Section 56430 requires LAFCO, when preparing the five-year service reviews, to make determinations regarding the services being provided to the various communities in the county. One determination subject is: "(5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies."
F3:
From the inception of special districts, they were required to operate by “rules,” often redefined as bylaws or rules of proceedings as in (Kehoe) Government Code 61045(f). Response: LAFCO – PARTIALLY DISAGREES Government Code Section 61045(f) is located in the Community Service District law and states: "(f) The board of directors shall adopt rules or bylaws for Its Who Is Watching Our Special Districts? 65 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses proceedings." This section of the law applies only to Community Service Districts formed under Government Code Section 61000 et seq. There are no such districts in Santa Cruz County. As pointed out in the comments LAFCO has received from some of the districts in Santa Cruz County, the enabling acts for other types of districts (such as fire protection districts and county water districts) do not contain a similar requirement.
F4:
All special districts fall under the mandate of the Ralph M. Brown Act, adopted in 1953 [Government Code 54950 to 54962], which requires agencies to have open meetings. Response: LAFCO – AGREES
F5:
In Santa Cruz County the special district that initiated this investigation has operated, and others may continue to operate, in violation of statutes requiring adoption of bylaws and parliamentary procedures. No Response Required
F6:
Santa Cruz County special districts have never been required to submit bylaws, parliamentary procedures and mission statements to LAFCO. Response: LAFCO – AGREES Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES
F7:
LAFCO special district files in Santa Cruz County contain very few, if any, copies of bylaws, parliamentary procedures or mission statements. Response: LAFCO – AGREES LAFCO also notes that, in reviewing the Grand Jury's report, several special districts have provided LAFCO with website references and paper copies of their bylaws, parliamentary procedures, and mission statements. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DEFERS TO LAFCO The County does not have access to LAFCO files and will defer to LAFCO to respond to this finding.
F8:
In Santa Cruz County no governmental agency has provided special district oversight to ensure existence of and operation within bylaws and parliamentary procedures. Who Is Watching Our Special Districts? 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response: LAFCO – AGREES Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES Special districts operate under their own locally elected, independent board of directors and are not under the jurisdiction of any other governmental agency.
F9:
Among the 78 special districts within Santa Cruz county that are the subject of this report, all are authorized to operate under various principal acts and California statutes. No Response Required Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Santa Cruz LAFCO commissioners should require that a mission statement accompany the initial application for formation of a special district. Response: LAFCO – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Consistent with applicable law, LAFCO currently has extensive application requirements for any party proposing the formation of a new district. These requirements include a purpose, a budget, and an operating plan. A LAFCO application requirement that a mission statement be included in the application would be duplicative. A district, if it is formed, may decide whether the adoption of a mission statement would be a helpful management tool. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DEFERS TO LAFCO LAFCO was created to regulate the boundaries of cities and special districts. The County defers to the LAFCO Board to determine whether this recommendation falls within its purview. Who Is Watching Our Special Districts? 67 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
R2:
Santa Cruz LAFCO commissioners should require bylaws and parliamentary procedures be adopted, presented to and permanently lodged with LAFCO within 90 days of formation of a new district. Response: LAFCO – HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED This recommendation has not been implemented and it may exceed LAFCO's legal authority under state law. LAFCO notes that any new district will be subject to any of the other Grand Jury recommendations that LAFCO implements for all districts. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DEFERS TO LAFCO LAFCO was created to regulate the boundaries of cities and special districts. The County defers to the LAFCO Board to determine whether this recommendation falls within its purview.
R3:
Santa Cruz LAFCO commissioners should require all existing special districts to have bylaws and parliamentary procedures and to submit copies for LAFCO’s files within six months. Response: LAFCO – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED This recommendation will not be implemented and it may exceed LAFCO's authority under state law and may conflict with the enabling statutes for various special districts. If legal support existed for such a requirement, LAFCO would not choose to implement it because LAFCO believes that the decision to adopt bylaws and parliamentary procedures should be made by each district board, and that LAFCO should not prioritize its limited staff time in an effort to enforce special districts to adopt bylaws and parliamentary procedures. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DEFERS TO LAFCO LAFCO was created to regulate the boundaries of cities and special districts. The County defers to the LAFCO Board to determine whether this recommendation falls within its purview.
R4:
The Santa Cruz LAFCO office should act as a central repository and maintain copies of each special district’s bylaws, parliamentary procedures and, if applicable, mission statement. Response: LAFCO – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED LAFCO has implemented this recommendation in the following manner: -- The "Links" page of LAFCO's website has been expanded to include notations for the special districts that don't maintain websites. Only six independent districts do not have any website: -- Alba Recreation and Park District 68 Who Is Watching Our Special Districts? 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses --Central Water District --Opal Cliffs Recreation and Park District --Pajaro Valley Public Cemetery District --Reclamation District 2049 (College Lake) --Salsipuedes Sanitary District. --Santa Cruz LAFCO has opened a paper file that will be the permanent repository of all district bylaws, parliamentary procedures, and mission statements that districts submit in paper format. --Santa Cruz LAFCO has added a notation on the "Links" page of its website that the paper versions of special district bylaws, parliamentary procedures, and mission statements that have been submitted to LAFCO may be accessed at the LAFCO office. --In the next round of service reviews, LAFCO will inquire of each special district if they have bylaws, parliamentary procedures, and mission statements. LAFCO will ask if the documents are available on the district's website, and will invite districts that don't make the documents available on their website to file paper copies at the LAFCO office. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DEFERS TO LAFCO LAFCO was created to regulate the boundaries of cities and special districts. The County defers to the LAFCO Board to determine whether this recommendation falls within its purview.
R5:
The public should have access during normal County business hours or by electronic media to LAFCO copies of special district governing documents. Response: LAFCO – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DEFERS TO LAFCO LAFCO was created to regulate the boundaries of cities and special districts. The County defers to the LAFCO Board to determine whether this recommendation falls within its purview.
R6:
The LAFCO commissioners and/or the County Board of Supervisors should draft enforceable penalties for failure to comply with these recommendations, following adoption. Response: LAFCO – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED LAFCO will not implement this recommendation because: --It may not be legal under state law Who Is Watching Our Special Districts? 69 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses --LAFCO has major pending applications to review and significant state mandates to comply with. LAFCO must use its limited resources to provide thorough reviews and public hearings on applications, and to meet the state mandates --The public and the Grand Jury should deal directly with any district they believe is failing to provide adequate transparency in conducting the public's business. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DEFERS TO LAFCO LAFCO was created to regulate the boundaries of cities and special districts. The County defers to the LAFCO Board to determine whether this recommendation falls within its purview.
R7:
For an example, see Response Report to the 2006-2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report: http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/grandjury. If you have questions about the response report, please contact the Grand Jury by calling (831) 454-2099 or by email: [email protected]. Instructions to Respondents 73 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Where to Respond
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
On March 12, 2008, PVUSD Board Agenda item 13.4 reports that the district will not have the funding to meet the current budget. Due to the State’s financial crisis, A Tale of a SERP 47 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses PVUSD would be $9,400,000 short for 2008-2009 and $17,500,000 short for 2009- 2010 if cuts and adjustments were not made. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES
F2:
PVUSD hired Keenan and Associates, a financial planner, to conduct a Fiscal Cost Analysis to analyze the potential savings of offering a SERP. The report was prepared and submitted to the district on June 6, 2008. It established plan assumptions, benefit options, demographic analysis, SERP cost analysis, and benefit data sheets for three employee groups in the district. PVUSD staff stated that offering a SERP to management employees could generate a cost savings of approximately $159,000 depending upon the number of employees who took advantage of the opportunity. The proposal identified twelve managers as potential candidates for the incentive. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES PVUSD staff stated the projected savings generated would be $159,000 over five years as the projected by Keenan and Associates in the report dated March 6, 2008. The power point presentation to the board March 12, 2008 listed projected savings by year. Yr 1: $50,794 Yr. 2: 40,546 Yr. 3: 30,672 Yr. 4: 21,349 Yr. 5: 15,867 The projection was that an estimated 12 employees would take advantage of the SERP, there were more than 12 employees that would qualify.
F3:
Three months before Keenan and Associates submitted the Fiscal Cost Analysis, PVUSD Board of Education approved Resolution 0708-22 on March 12, 2008, offering a SERP for management employees. The criteria set forth by the Board requires that the employee: • is a certificated or classified management employee • will be at least 55 years of age by June 30, 2008 • has at lease five years of continuous service with the district by date of retirement • submits a letter of resignation and SERP enrollment package by May 9, 2008 • is eligible to retire from State Teacher Retirement System (STRS) or Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) • retires from the district as of June 30, 2008 • will not be eligible for reemployment in the district other than as a substitute 48 A Tale of a SERP 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES The projections were brought to the board March 12, 2008 with the resolution to request permission to proceed with the offering. This criterion is the same for management and teachers.
F4:
The PVUSD SERP offered eligible employees 95% of current salary to be paid according to the option selected by the employee. The terms of payment varied from a monthly payment through the remainder of life or a five to ten year distribution. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES
F5:
The Associate Superintendent of Business and the Interim Superintendent prepared the SERP Resolution 0708-22 and the agenda item for the PVUSD Board. The resolution was approved in open session and the public had the opportunity to see the item on the agenda prior to the action taken by the board. Both the Interim Superintendent and the Secretary of the Board signed the resolution according to district procedures. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES Associate Superintendent prepared the item and Superintendent approved the item for the board packet. The appropriate protocols for submitting and approving resolutions were followed.
F6:
PVUSD Board Members did not have a copy of the Fiscal Cost Analysis prepared by Keenan and Associates and were not privy to the information in the document except what was reported to them by staff prior to approving the SERP. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District – PARTIALLY AGREES The appropriate protocols for the adoption of resolutions were followed. The projected savings were supplied to the board, without the individual salary data which was not presented for reasons of confidentiality.
F7:
The district SERP administrators were the Associate Superintendent of Business and Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources. Keenan Financial Services served as the contract administrator to assist in implementation of the plan. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES The Board authorized the two positions in Resolution 07-08-22 dated March 12, 2008 to administer and execute the plan. This included, executing documents and authorizing the contract. A Tale of a SERP 49 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F8:
Following the approval of the SERP by the PVUSD Board, an announcement flyer was prepared and distributed to all management employees in the district. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - DISAGREES The flyer was mailed to eligible managers only.
F9:
Twelve employees submitted the proper paperwork and met the established criteria to receive the retirement incentive. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES
F10:
Eleven of those employees, the Associate Superintendent of Business and the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources were subordinate to the superintendent and they reported directly to the superintendent. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - DISAGREES While all employees were subordinate to the Superintendent, all of the employees other than the Associate Superintendent, Business and the Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources were directly supervised by someone other than the Superintendent.
F11:
One of the employees was directly evaluated by the PVUSD Board and had a specific written contract that stipulated all terms and conditions of employment including compensation and benefits. The contract did not provide authorization for a SERP. In addition, this employee had previously retired from the district and was serving in an interim capacity. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES
F12:
Keenan Financial Services estimated cost savings of $159,000 if all eligible management employees took advantage of the SERP. Interviews with the PVUSD officials revealed that the SERP savings was approximately $46,000, $113,000 less than projected. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - DISAGREES The PVUSD officials showed that the savings for the FIRST year was $46,000. The Keenan document stated an estimated savings over FIVE years of $159,000. At the time when the district officials were asked for the savings amount only ONE year had past therefore only one year of savings could be calculated. A Tale of a SERP 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F13:
A financial analysis of the projected savings compared to the actual savings was not shared with the Board of Education. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES The savings for the first year after the SERP had not been shared with the Board.
F14:
PVUSD stated that the County Office of Education was informed about the SERP. However officials at the county office stated they were not involved in the SERP offered by PVUSD and would only be involved if the SERP was part of a fiscal recovery plan or a payment agreement with employee bargaining units. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District - AGREES The county was not involved in the offer of the SERP to Management Employees. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education – PARTIALLY AGREES The Santa Cruz County Office of Education disagrees with the statement made by the PVUSD that the County Office of Education was informed about the SERP. We do agree with the second sentence in the Finding that officials at the county office stated they were not involved in the SERP offered by PVUSD and would only be involved if the SERP were part of a fiscal recovery plan or a payment agreement with employee bargaining units. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education has no role in reviewing or approving district Supplemental Early Retirement Programs; however, the role of the County Office of Education does include submitting retirement information in district matters of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS). Even in those cases, the role is not one of approval but rather submitting the retirement information and that only in the case of PERS. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education had no role in PVUSD’s SERP early retirement program of which this action was directed. Under fiscal oversight statutes (collectively referred to as AB 1200), the Santa Cruz County Office of Education does have a responsibility to review certain elements that involve added costs to districts if the district is under fiscal stress. The PVUSD at the time the SERP was granted had a positive certification. Even if not under fiscal stress, any agreements that are made between the district and a PERS recognized bargaining unit must be disclosed and the Santa Cruz County Office of Education must be provided the information as to the costs, if any, and it must also be disclosed to the public prior to board action. The 2007-2008 PVUSD budget was approved in August of 2007 by the Santa Cruz County Office of Education and the referenced First Interim Report for that year was filed by the district and received a positive certification in January, 2008. A positive certification is defined as an interim budget report that, based upon current projections, certifies the district will meet its financial obligations for the current fiscal year and subsequent two fiscal years. A Tale of a SERP 51 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses In April of 2008, the district filed the required Second Interim Report and it was assigned a negative certification. One of the solutions the district proposed was to offer a supplemental early retirement option through a third party vendor, Keenan and Associates. They are among one of several vendors that work with school districts to craft such programs. By their very nature, these are programs that are offered with certain criteria in place with a stipulated timeframe. The decision to implement them is contingent upon projected cost savings. These preliminary reports only serve to define the possible eligibles not the actual outcome. The final actual application submitted determines the financial feasibility after the close of the application period. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education’s role is only to acknowledge that the district is using this program as a projected cost reduction strategy. It is within the purview of the district board to approve such strategies.
F15:
County Office of Education officials weren’t aware of a SERP being awarded to a retired employee serving as interim administrator for a district. County officials stated the practice of awarding a SERP in that situation was unusual and they had never heard of it happening before in the county. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education – AGREES The Santa Cruz County Office of Education was not aware of the final offering to administrators. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education is not aware of other instances in which a retired or interim employee was provided such a benefit in the past. Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The County could realize significant savings through more effective utilization of the CAL-Card program and by reducing reliance on the costly purchase order system.
F2:
County departments avoid using the CAL-Card system due to spending restrictions and burdensome procedures for processing bills, invoices, and disputes.
F3:
The County’s adherence to old policies and procedures is limiting its ability to recognize potential savings through expanded use of CAL-Card.
F4:
The County does not offer any incentive programs to encourage departments to utilize the CAL-Card program, and the departments do not share in the rebates earned.
F5:
A free optimization audit by Visa and U.S. Bank could provide the County with multiple strategies for increasing the usage of CAL-Card, which could result in significant savings to the County.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County should encourage CAL-Card use by re-examining and reducing restrictions to eliminate as many obstacles to card use as is practical. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS The Auditor-Controller and General Services Director will re-examine current restrictions and determine if any change in those restrictions is warranted. Any benefits resulting from a change in those controls must be weighed against the risks associated with a lack of controls; fraud, waste and misuse of County funds. The results of this analysis and any proposed changes will be provided to the Board of Supervisors in December 2009 when the Board is next scheduled to hear updates to the County’s Policy and Procedure Manual. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – REQURIES FURTHER ANALYSIS Both the Auditor’s Office and the General Services Department will re-examine current policies and procedures, analyze the risk impact of increasing the thresholds, and determine whether any change in those restrictions are warranted. Any benefits resulting from a change in those controls must be weighed against the risks associated with a lack of controls. Results of this effort will be part of the next County Policies and Procedures update at the end of 2009, as necessary.
R2:
The County should revise and increase card limits for higher-level personnel, with accompanying revisions to “Guidelines for Purchases” and related Purchasing Policy Manual sections. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card 33 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses The Auditor-Controller and General Services Director will review current card limits and determine if any changes in those restrictions are warranted. Any benefits resulting from a change in those controls must be weighed against the risks associated with a lack of controls; fraud, waste and misuse of County funds. The results of this analysis and any proposed changes will be provided to the Board of Supervisors in December 2009, when the Board is next scheduled to hear updates to the County’s Policy and Procedure Manual. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS Both the Auditor’s Office and the General Services Department plan to meet and examine the current policies and procedures, analyze the risk impact of increasing the thresholds, and then formulate a joint recommendation. Results of this effort will be part of the next County Policies and Procedures update at the end of 2009, as necessary.
R3:
The County should establish a list of pre-approved service vendors that meet Living Wage, Green Purchase, and other requirements and allow those services to be purchased via CAL-Card. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Service vendors are not appropriate to be paid through the CAL-Card process with limited exceptions. CAL-Card does not have the capability of supporting 1099 reporting required by the IRS. The County must report service payments over $600 per vendor to the IRS annually. The County cannot capture vendor information from CAL-Card, other than manually, which would be cost prohibitive. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Due to 1099 required reporting, it is not appropriate for pay for service vendors using a CAL-Card. There are limited pre-approved exceptions when the vendor is a corporation and not subject to the County obtaining 1099 information.
R4:
The County should simplify the processes of billing, reconciliation, and questioned item resolution for CAL-Card purchases to reduce paperwork and burden on individual users. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS The Auditor-Controller and General Services Director will review the current procedures and determine if simplification is possible. The results of this review and any proposed changes will be provided to the Board of Supervisors in December 34 For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses 2009 when the Board is next scheduled to hear updates to the County’s Policy and Procedure Manual. We currently require the departments to handle their questioned charges and returns, because they are the ones most knowledgeable about the transaction. Although some parts of the reconciliation process may be automated in the future, the department or employee making the purchases will still need to ultimately be responsible for the CAL-Card charges made. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS The Auditor-Controller and General Services Director will review the current procedures and determine if simplification is possible. The results of this review and any proposed changes will be provided to the Board of Supervisors in December 2009 when the Board is next scheduled to hear updates to the County’s Policy and Procedure Manual. The Auditor-Controller currently requires the departments to handle their questioned charges and returns, because they are the ones most knowledgeable about the transaction. Although some parts of the reconciliation process may be automated in the future, the department or employee making the purchases will still need to ultimately be responsible for the CAL-Card charges made.
R5:
The County should automate CAL-Card billing and reconciliation to maximize rebates for on-time payments. Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – REQURIES FURTHER ANALYSIS The Auditor-Controller and General Services Director will review the current procedures and determine if any automation or procedural changes are possible to maximize the receipt of available rebates. The results of this review and any proposed changes will be provided to the Board of Supervisors in December 2009, when the Board is next scheduled to hear updates to the County’s Policy and Procedure Manual. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS The Auditor-Controller and General Services Director will review the current procedures to determine whether any automation or procedural changes are possible to maximize the receipt of available rebates. The results of this review and any proposed changes will be provided to the Board of Supervisors in December 2009, when the County Policies and Procedures Manual is next updated.
R6:
The County should create incentives, such as recognition and rewards, to encourage employees and departments to promote the use of CAL-Card. For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card 35 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses Response: County of Santa Cruz Auditor-Controller – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Expenditures made on behalf of the County should be made according to the procedures established by the County based upon the most cost effective and appropriate method rather than personal incentives which might appear to influence the purchaser’s independence when selecting a vendor or method of payment. CAL- Card already institutes its own reward system by the use of rebates. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED Expenditures made on behalf of the County are to be made according to the procedures established by the County based upon the most cost effective and appropriate method rather than personal incentives which might appear to influence the purchaser’s independence when selecting a vendor or method of payment. CAL- Card already institutes its own reward system through the use of rebates.
R7:
The County should request an optimization audit from Visa and U.S. Bank to examine how the savings from use of CAL-Card could be maximized. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE The Purchasing Division will pursue this effort in their future work plan when staff have sufficient time to provide the necessary information and U.S. Bank’s schedule can accommodate the request. Responses Required Note: The responses of the County of Santa Cruz Purchasing Department were incorporated into the responses from the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Supervisors is identified as the respondent. Respond Within / Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By County of Santa Cruz 60 days 2, 5, 7, 12 Board of Supervisors 1-7 September 1, 2009 County of Santa Cruz 90 days 2, 4, 5, 8 12 Auditor Controller 3, 5, 6 October 1, 2009 County of Santa Cruz 90 days 1-3, 6-7, 9-11 Purchasing Department 1-5 October 1, 2009 Sources Tours/Facilities Visits Central Stores/County Warehouse 36 For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The implementation of Recommendation 5 to reinstate the School Resource Officer was delayed due to staffing and budgetary restrictions but no timeframe was provided for the reinstatement.
F2:
The responses to Recommendations 9 and 12 indicated the District would conduct further analyses of the suggestions in the recommendations but there were no explanations, no descriptions of the scope and parameters of the analyses or studies, and no timeframes. Continuity…The Beginning of the Never-Ending Report ∫ 193 2008-2009 Recommendation Respondent 2008-2009 Response 5 SVUSD should work with the Scotts SVUSD SVPD Has not been Valley Police Department (SVPD) to implemented but will be reinstate the School Resource Officer to implemented in the future the high school campus when budgetary restrictions allow. All staff members who teach or counsel SVUSD Requires further analysis students regarding alcohol prevention should be part of the planning team that addresses prevention and intervention solutions. The many resources provided through county agencies should be available for use by staff. SVUSD should involve students in self- SVUSD Requires further analysis help strategies such as peer counseling and conflict resolution, as well as county-wide programs such as Friday Night Live and the Together for Youth collaborative. Current Recommendations
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
SVUSD and SVPD should provide the Grand Jury with an update on the status of reinstating a School Resource Officer to the high school campus. Response: Scotts Valley Police Department – AGREE Has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. The Scotts Valley Police Department remains committed to reinstating a School Resource Officer (SRO) at Scotts Valley High School as soon as staffing allows. Unfortunately, we have lost one officer to another organization and are still understaffed by two positions. Recruitment, academy and field training for one new officer can take a year to complete, thus delaying a return to full staffing. Once training is complete and we have returned to full staffing, which should take approximately 1 to 2 years, we will dedicate an officer to Scotts Valley High School. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District At the time of the district’s initial response, the district had set aside funds for an SRO, but the Scotts Valley Police Department had no personnel to provide. This year, because of the state funding crisis, the district no longer has funding for an SRO, as all funds are needed to maintain basic core programs. If and when funds again become available, and if the SVPD is able to provide an SRO, the district intends to fund a partial SRO position at the high school.
R2:
SVUSD should provide the Grand Jury with status reports on the analyses associated with Recommendations 9 and 12. 194 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District Response to Recommendation #9: An advisory committee was convened during the 2009- 10 school year by a high school counselor to investigate prevention and intervention options for students. The committee included high school staff involved with alcohol/drug abuse education, students, community members and law enforcement representatives who participated in defining a prevention/intervention strategy for the school, including parent programs and programs for students. This committee was instrumental in supporting the district’s participation in the Reduce Alcohol Abuse Program (RAAP) federal grant described below, a grant built upon the resources and participation of the Santa Cruz County Office of Education, Youth Services, North County high schools and adult education programs. Alcohol/drug abuse prevention continues to be part of the ninth grade health curriculum for all students with additional education, prevention and intervention as described below. Response to Recommendation #12: As one result of the RAAP grant, a student group, collaborating with Friday Night Live, will be arranging programs for district students. In addition, also as a result of the RAAP grant, Project Success will be providing prevention, intervention and parent programs. Project Success includes three components: 1) Twenty hours per week of counseling services are provided through Santa Cruz Community Counseling Program (Youth Services) onsite. All sophomores will participate in a small- group scripted curriculum (7 Challenges) for ten weeks focusing on resiliency and problem solving. 2) Students needing intervention will receive additional individualized services of the Youth Services counselor as needed. 3) The program will also provide parent events annually, to be determined by the committee. The intent is to ensure that students have the skills and strategies to make good choices for themselves and avoid drug and alcohol abuse. Section 2: For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card Synopsis Santa Cruz County departments rely on a centralized purchasing system to acquire almost $30 million in goods and services to sustain County functions. The processing of purchases costs the County in excess of $500,000 annually in administrative costs. These costs are allocated to individual departments based on the number of purchase orders processed for that department. Other purchasing options are available, including CAL-Card, a Visa card offered by U.S. Bank through a contract with the State of California. The Grand Jury investigated the benefits and drawbacks to using the CAL-Card system to encourage and maximize savings. Current Findings
R8:
were inconsistent, with PVUSD responding that the recommendation “Has Been Implemented” but without a description of the implementation, and the SCCOE responding that the recommendation “Has Not Yet Been Implemented But Will Be Implemented in the Future” without providing a timeframe for the implementation. 2008-2009 Recommendation Respondent 2008-2009 Response 8 PVUSD and the SCCOE should discuss PVUSD Has been implemented the SERP process and clarify the roles of SCCOE Has not yet been each agency prior to, during, and after implemented but will be implementation. implemented in the future Current Recommendation
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The implementation of Recommendation 5 to reinstate the School Resource Officer was delayed due to staffing and budgetary restrictions but no timeframe was provided for the reinstatement.
F2:
The responses to Recommendations 9 and 12 indicated the District would conduct further analyses of the suggestions in the recommendations but there were no explanations, no descriptions of the scope and parameters of the analyses or studies, and no timeframes. Continuity…The Beginning of the Never-Ending Report ∫ 193 2008-2009 Recommendation Respondent 2008-2009 Response 5 SVUSD should work with the Scotts SVUSD SVPD Has not been Valley Police Department (SVPD) to implemented but will be reinstate the School Resource Officer to implemented in the future the high school campus when budgetary restrictions allow. All staff members who teach or counsel SVUSD Requires further analysis students regarding alcohol prevention should be part of the planning team that addresses prevention and intervention solutions. The many resources provided through county agencies should be available for use by staff. SVUSD should involve students in self- SVUSD Requires further analysis help strategies such as peer counseling and conflict resolution, as well as county-wide programs such as Friday Night Live and the Together for Youth collaborative. Current Recommendations
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
SVUSD and SVPD should provide the Grand Jury with an update on the status of reinstating a School Resource Officer to the high school campus. Response: Scotts Valley Police Department – AGREE Has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. The Scotts Valley Police Department remains committed to reinstating a School Resource Officer (SRO) at Scotts Valley High School as soon as staffing allows. Unfortunately, we have lost one officer to another organization and are still understaffed by two positions. Recruitment, academy and field training for one new officer can take a year to complete, thus delaying a return to full staffing. Once training is complete and we have returned to full staffing, which should take approximately 1 to 2 years, we will dedicate an officer to Scotts Valley High School. Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District At the time of the district’s initial response, the district had set aside funds for an SRO, but the Scotts Valley Police Department had no personnel to provide. This year, because of the state funding crisis, the district no longer has funding for an SRO, as all funds are needed to maintain basic core programs. If and when funds again become available, and if the SVPD is able to provide an SRO, the district intends to fund a partial SRO position at the high school.
R2:
SVUSD should provide the Grand Jury with status reports on the analyses associated with Recommendations 9 and 12. 194 ∫ Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report 2009-2010 Response: Scotts Valley Unified School District Response to Recommendation #9: An advisory committee was convened during the 2009- 10 school year by a high school counselor to investigate prevention and intervention options for students. The committee included high school staff involved with alcohol/drug abuse education, students, community members and law enforcement representatives who participated in defining a prevention/intervention strategy for the school, including parent programs and programs for students. This committee was instrumental in supporting the district’s participation in the Reduce Alcohol Abuse Program (RAAP) federal grant described below, a grant built upon the resources and participation of the Santa Cruz County Office of Education, Youth Services, North County high schools and adult education programs. Alcohol/drug abuse prevention continues to be part of the ninth grade health curriculum for all students with additional education, prevention and intervention as described below. Response to Recommendation #12: As one result of the RAAP grant, a student group, collaborating with Friday Night Live, will be arranging programs for district students. In addition, also as a result of the RAAP grant, Project Success will be providing prevention, intervention and parent programs. Project Success includes three components: 1) Twenty hours per week of counseling services are provided through Santa Cruz Community Counseling Program (Youth Services) onsite. All sophomores will participate in a small- group scripted curriculum (7 Challenges) for ten weeks focusing on resiliency and problem solving. 2) Students needing intervention will receive additional individualized services of the Youth Services counselor as needed. 3) The program will also provide parent events annually, to be determined by the committee. The intent is to ensure that students have the skills and strategies to make good choices for themselves and avoid drug and alcohol abuse. Section 2: For Everything Else There’s CAL-Card Synopsis Santa Cruz County departments rely on a centralized purchasing system to acquire almost $30 million in goods and services to sustain County functions. The processing of purchases costs the County in excess of $500,000 annually in administrative costs. These costs are allocated to individual departments based on the number of purchase orders processed for that department. Other purchasing options are available, including CAL-Card, a Visa card offered by U.S. Bank through a contract with the State of California. The Grand Jury investigated the benefits and drawbacks to using the CAL-Card system to encourage and maximize savings. Current Findings
R8:
were inconsistent, with PVUSD responding that the recommendation “Has Been Implemented” but without a description of the implementation, and the SCCOE responding that the recommendation “Has Not Yet Been Implemented But Will Be Implemented in the Future” without providing a timeframe for the implementation. 2008-2009 Recommendation Respondent 2008-2009 Response 8 PVUSD and the SCCOE should discuss PVUSD Has been implemented the SERP process and clarify the roles of SCCOE Has not yet been each agency prior to, during, and after implemented but will be implementation. implemented in the future Current Recommendation
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
“County Fire” is a generic term used to describe fire protection services provided in the rural parts of the county but has two different meanings depending upon the agency using it: • Includes both CSA 48 and CSA 4 5, 6 • Includes only CSA 48 7, 8, 9 Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The label “County Fire” should be applied only to County Service Area 48 and not CSA 4. The Pajaro Dunes Schedule A service agreement should be removed from future County Fire contracts. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. County Fire is contained within the geographical boundaries of both areas represented by the two CSAs. CAL FIRE manages them under contract to Santa Cruz County. Other fire agencies within the County unincorporated area are organized as special districts with independent boards of directors. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The recommendation is not warranted. County Fire is contained within the geographical boundaries of both areas represented by the two CSAs. CAL FIRE manages them under contract to Santa Cruz County. Other fire agencies within the County unincorporated area are organized as special districts with independent boards of directors.
F2:
The County Fire contract provides fire and rescue services for two separate county service areas: CSA 48 (286 sq. mi.) and CSA 4 (Pajaro Dunes, 0.2 sq. mi.). Pajaro Dunes is a beachfront development located on the southern tip of the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Cal Fire contract should clearly present the services paid by the County so that FDAC, General Services Dept/OES and Board of Supervisors may properly review and understand the services provided in the contract. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. CAL FIRE uses a standard contract instrument statewide which only lists those personnel and services provided by the State to the County. The County also provides services and personnel which are identified in the County Budget and are sometimes referred to as Schedule “C” of the State contract. Clarification regarding provision of services will continue to be handled separately on an as needed basis by staff. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The recommendation is unreasonable in that CAL FIRE uses a standard contract instrument statewide. The CAL FIRE contract only lists those personnel and services provided by the State to the County. The County also provides services and personnel and those are listed in the County Budget and are sometimes referred to as Schedule “C” of the State contract. Clarification regarding provision of services will continue to be handled separately on an as needed basis by staff.
F3:
All of CSA 48 is a State Responsibility Area except for the farmlands on the county’s North Coast and the farmlands that surround Pajaro Dunes. Cal Fire is, therefore, responsible for preventing and suppressing fires in this CSA. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. The geographical description of State Responsibility Area (SRA) is accurate except that, in general, the beach and agricultural areas of the north county are not SRA. CAL FIRE’s responsibility in SRA is for “fires” and pursuant to Public Resources Code 4114(b), the Department may provide rescue, first aid, and other emergency services only when available and when no additional costs to the State are associated. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The geographical description of State Responsibility Area (SRA) is accurate except that, in general, the beach and agricultural areas of the north county are not SRA. CAL FIRE’s responsibility in SRA is for “fires” and pursuant to PRC 4114(b), the Department may provide rescue, first aid, and other emergency services only when available and when no additional costs to the State are associated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should carefully scrutinize FDAC recommendations for Cal Fire services with the knowledge that these recommendations are heavily influenced and prioritized by Cal Fire officers who also manage County Fire. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The membership of the Fire Department Advisory Commission includes one person nominated by each member of the Board of Supervisors, and representatives of the Planning Department, the Office of Emergency Services, County Fire/CAL FIRE, the volunteer company officers organization, and the CAL FIRE firefighters. This membership is designed to ensure that the interests of the county fire department, career and volunteer fire companies and the citizens residing within county fire department jurisdiction are protected and promoted. All recommendations by the FDAC are the result of a democratic process with open, noticed meetings. The Board relies upon and is confident that the recommendations submitted by the FDAC are based upon the knowledge and expertise of all the members. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The recommendation is not warranted. By County ordinance, the Chief of County Fire or his designee is a voting member of the FDAC as are representatives from each supervisorial district. All recommendations by the FDAC are the result of a democratic process. 0
F4:
County Fire does not include all the state responsibility areas in Santa Cruz County. Notably excluded is the area within the Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District. Coastal Incident Response Plan, August 2005 http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/oes/Coastal%20Incident%20Response%20Plan%202005v1.5.pdf ( ). County Fire Contract for FY 2007-2008 as signed by the Director of General Services, http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/Minutes/2008/20080212/PDF/069.pdf 7 County Service Area (CSA) 48 contains all areas served by the County Fire Department, except the Pajaro Dunes development, which constitutes County Service Area 4” – . Santa Cruz County Volunteer Firefighter Handbook [Revised: November 2003]. LAFCO – Countywide Service Review 2005: CSA 48 is County Fire and CSA 4 is Pajaro Dunes. 9 2007-2008 Secured Property Tax Bill special assessments for parcels in CSA 48 labeled County Fire and CSA 4 labeled Pajaro Dunes. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. The State Responsibility Area also exists within the following Fire Districts: Boulder Creek, Ben Lomond, Scotts Valley, Aptos-La Selva, Central, Branciforte, Zayante, and Felton. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. SRA also exists within the following Fire Protection Districts: Boulder Creek, Ben Lomond, Scotts Valley, Aptos-La Selva, Central, Branciforte, Zayante, and Felton
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
A County Fire web page should be created, with a link available on the Santa Cruz County Government home page. The County Fire web page could include the Cal Fire cooperative agreements that make up the contract and links to the Cal Fire and participating volunteer company web sites. Response from the County: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. The FDAC has established a task group to develop appropriate models and anticipates making recommendations for implementation of a web site by the end of the calendar year. The implementation schedule is dependent upon the determination of necessary resources and funding. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. The FDAC has established task group to develop appropriate models and anticipates making recommendations for implementation of a web site by the end of the calendar year. The implementation schedule is dependent upon the determination of necessary resources and funding.
F5:
CSA 4 is a Local Responsibility Area. The County is required to provide fire protection services in this CSA. Response from the County: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. There is no State requirement that a County provide fire services anywhere. The obligation for fire protection in CSA 4 was established through the development agreement that permitted the Pajaro Dunes community. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. There is no State requirement that a County provide fire services anywhere. The obligation for fire protection in CSA 4 was caused by the development agreement which permitted the Pajaro Dune community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
All fire company volunteers should receive recognition from the Board of Supervisors, with particular commendations to long-time volunteers. Response from the County: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. County Fire management will work with County staff to formulate an action plan for consideration by the County Administrative Office and Board of Supervisors. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. County Fire management will work with County staff to formulate an action plan for consideration by the County Administrative Office and Board of Supervisors.
F6:
By county ordinance, the Fire Department Advisory Commission (FDAC) was established to advise the Board of Supervisors and County Fire Chief on budgeting, personnel, and other concerns relating to CSA 48 fire protection, rescue and emergency services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
County Fire management needs to explain the parameters that shape its incident reporting to the Board of Supervisors, and the supervisors should understand the elements involved in tracking incident responses. This knowledge is required to understand properly what is being reported. Response from the County: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. For all statistical reports involving County Fire call data, the methodology and data sources will be explained fully to ensure the Board’s understanding of the information. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. For all statistical reports involving County Fire call data, the methodology and data sources will be explained fully to ensure the Board’s understanding of the information.
F7:
The County Fire contract consists of three different cooperative agreements. Two are related to CSA 48, and a separate agreement is for CSA 4. • The two agreements for CSA 48 are (cid:190) Amador Plan, wherein the county government pays Cal Fire for fire and rescue service during the winter/non-fire season. There are four Cal Fire stations in this agreement. (cid:190) Schedule A, which provides a year-round Fire Marshal,10 ECC, volunteer training, vehicle maintenance and administrative support services. • CSA 4 consists of a single Schedule A agreement, which provides Pajaro Dunes with year-round two-operator engine staffing. Response from the County: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The firefighters associated with the CAL FIRE engines staffed during non-fire season are identified in the Public Resources Code (PRC) as Schedule A. The Battalion Chiefs, company Officers, use of the fire stations and equipment are identified as Amador.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
County Fire management should include the responses of volunteer companies and other mutual aid when evaluating the effects of reduced staffing. Response from the County: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. Depending upon direction from the Board of Supervisors and/or the specific assignment at hand, any evaluation of reduction in staffing will include both career and volunteer responders. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. Depending upon direction from the Board of Supervisors and/or the specific assignment at hand, any evaluation of reduction in staffing will include both career and volunteer responders.
F8:
In CSA 48, Cal Fire retains full control of state resources (personnel, vehicles, equipment) and can reassign these to meet emergency needs elsewhere in the state. In 10 The Fire Marshal duties include fire code enforcement, plan review, inspection and addressing services. contrast, the Pajaro Dunes Schedule A year-round agreement requires Cal Fire to always staff and maintain a fire station in CSA 4. Response from the County: AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The FDAC should include a representative of the Health Services Agency to add perspective to medical response issues. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. Health Services Agency staff already coordinate closely with the fire agencies on medical response issues through various other groups and committees. The FDAC has been in the process of evaluating its current membership complement. At their July 2008 meeting reconsideration of adding an HSA representative was discussed; FDAC members voted not to include HSA as a voting member. FDAC members agreed that HSA staff might be invited to FDAC meetings if particular topics are related to their areas of expertise. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The recommendation is not warranted. The FDAC has been in the process of evaluating its current membership complement. At their July 2008 meeting reconsideration of adding an HSA representative was discussed; FDAC members voted not to include HSA as a voting member. FADCA members agreed that HSA staff may be invited to FDAC meetings if particular topics are related to their areas of expertise.
F9:
There are four Cal Fire Amador Plan stations and five volunteer companies in CSA 48: Cal Fire Amador Stations Volunteer Company Stations Big Creek Bonny Doon – Martin Rd. Burrell Bonny Doon – McDermott Corralitos* Corralitos* Saratoga Summit Davenport Las Cumbres Loma Prieta *Cal Fire and volunteers co-located (See Map, Appendix A, and Sources/Websites: Santa Cruz County Fire Interactive Map11.)
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
County Fire should be made a member of the Emergency Medical Services Integration Authority (EMSIA). Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The Emergency Medical Services Integration Authority (EMSIA) is a joint powers association of Fire Agencies. At the time that the EMSIA was formed, the County decided not to become member due to possibility for future, unidentified fiscal obligations as set forth in the EMSIA membership agreement. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The recommendation is not warranted. County Fire does not have paramedic services at present.
F10:
Cal Fire prepares the annual operating budget for County Fire. In 2007-2008 this budget is $2,870,629 including $2,030,354 for CSA 48 and $840,275 for CSA 4.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Paradise Park should be detached from CSA 48. Response from the County: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. Detachment is only viable if another agency assumes full responsibility for service delivery in Paradise Park. County Fire will continue to evaluate possibilities for ensuring appropriate level of protection for Paradise Park. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. Detachment is only viable if another agency assumes full responsibility for service delivery in Paradise Park. Response from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. The principal alternatives to provide fire and emergency services to the Paradise Park area are: • For the Paradise Park area to remain in County Service Area 48, and for the Board of Supervisors to form a Paradise Park Zone of County Service Area 48 to separately pay for the fire and emergency response services in the Paradise Park area. • Detach the Paradise Park area from the County Service Area 48 and form a new Paradise Park Service Area to pay for fire and emergency response costs in the Paradise Park area. • Detach the Paradise Park area from County Service Area 48 and annex it to the City of Santa Cruz. Any analysis should include one-time process costs (such as LAFCO fees, State Board of Equalization fees, preparation of legal map and description, and the initial Proposition 218 elections to establish a special tax or fire suppression assessment). In the third alternative of annexing to the City of Santa Cruz, additional analysis should be done to look at the entire range of services (police, land use regulation, public works costs and liabilities, etc). Paradise Park is currently located outside the City of Santa Cruz sphere of influence. Concerning implementation of this Grand Jury recommendation, LAFCO believes that the lead agency for the analysis should be the County of Santa Cruz. The County has expressed interest in establishing Zones within County Service Area 48, and that may be the simplest alternative to simply account for the cost of fire and emergency services in the Paradise Park area. Under state law, establishing such Zones does not require a LAFCO hearing and authorization. LAFCO staff is available to assist the Paradise Park area property owners, the Paradise Park area residents, the County of Santa Cruz, and other interested parties in evaluating the alternatives.
F11:
The primary funding sources for County Fire are property taxes and special assessments. The majority of CSA 48 property owners in 2007-2008 were assessed $117 per parcel and CSA 4 property owners $669.80. Secondary funding sources come from Proposition 172 funds and grants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
All agencies using addressing clerk services should share in the cost. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Effective FY 08/09, the cost of this position is allocated to either County Fire (a Fire Fund expense) or the Office of Emergency Services (a General Fund expense), based on the jurisdiction of the address being assigned. As a General Fund expenditure, the allocation of costs to the Office of Emergency Services essentially includes County agencies such as the Sheriff’s Department and the Department of Public Works. Allocation of costs to individual County departments would be a cumbersome process with no programmatic or fiscal benefit. Assigning costs to either the General Fund of the Fire Fund will appropriately allocate costs of the program. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: AGREES. The recommendation is reasonable. The cost of the work of the position should be allocated to all County jurisdictions/operations receiving the actual benefit including the Sheriff’s Office and Public Works.
F12:
A special election was held in fall 2007 that would have nearly doubled the CSA 48 special assessment in order to offset the increasing cost of the Amador Plan staffing and equipment replacement. This ballot measure failed and, as a result, budget reductions were required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Board of Supervisors should review the allocation of Proposition 172 funds. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The policy for the distribution of funds to unincorporated area fire services was developed jointly by representatives of County public safety agencies (the Sheriff- Coroner, District Attorney, the Chief Probation Officer, and representatives of the unincorporated area fires services) and the County Administrative Officer and approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1998. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: AGREES. A more equitable distribution of funds to unincorporated area fire services should be considered. The fire share represents a percentage of benefit only in those years when an increase over the tax base amount occurs. For those years where no increase occurs, fire does not receive share. The development of the distribution formula was agreed to by all the above mentioned representatives and was intended to recognize the inclusion of the fire services in the definition of public safety under Proposition 172 as well as to respond to the fire services request for a fair share of the public safety funding. The fire share represents a percentage of benefit in those years when an increase over the tax base amount occurs. For those years where no increase occurs, fire agencies do not receive a share, nor is there any reduction to the fire agencies allocation when Proposition 172 funds decrease from the prior year.
F13:
The County Fire contract prepared by Cal Fire has been inconsistent from year to year: • The 2007-2008 Amador agreement showed three stations, but the 2006-2007 agreement showed four stations. • The 2007-2008 Amador agreement totaled $53,267, but the 2005-2006 agreement totaled $711,590. The much lower cost in 2007-2008 was due to firefighter personnel, the most significant cost component, being listed on the Schedule A agreement instead of on the Amador agreement. Response from the County: DISAGREES. The contract reflects changing needs and available resources. The three stations were identified in an initial budget reduction recommendation that was changed by the Board of Supervisors. A correction to the agreement was not processed. 11 http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=105229572859786697499.00044308a6fb925404fc3&hl=e n&ie=UTF8&z=10 The shift in the contract costs for the identified years reflects a change in planned overtime to be covered by the State due to the CAL FIRE firefighters’ labor contract negotiations. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY AGREES. The reference to the three stations was an initial budget reduction recommendation that was changed by the Board of Supervisors after the document was prepared. The corresponding correction was not made. The shift in the contract costs for the identified years is due to the CAL FIRE firefighters labor contract negotiations and reflects a change in placement of planned overtime to be covered by the state. Santa Cruz County Office of Emergency Services (OES) under the General Services Department administers the County Fire contract and Cal Fire manages County Fire on a day-to-day basis. The cost of the Amador Plan is dependent on the length of the state-declared fire season. The longer the fire season, the longer the state rather than the county is obligated to fund staffing for state-run fire stations. The final 2007-2008 Amador Plan included 29 Cal Fire firefighters. Of these, 12 officers were paid by the state, and 17 seasonal firefighters were fully funded by the county. The majority of firefighters were not paid, with approximately 74 active volunteers in CSA 48. During the last four months of the 2007-2008 Amador Plan, firefighter staffing was reduced. On a rotating schedule, instead of assigning three engine operators to all four stations, one station was reduced to two engine operators each week. Cal Fire assigned other state-paid personnel to the fire stations based on anticipated need. A significant portion of the Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District is classified as State Responsibility Area but in contrast to CSA 48 has a single fire station with a year- round Cal Fire contract for two engine operators. Only 0.4 percent of approximately $16 million in Proposition 172 funds are designated to the 2007-2008 County Fire budget with the remainder going to county law enforcement. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. 0.4% of approximately $16 million in Proposition 172 funds were designated to the 2007- 08 County Fire budget pursuant to the revenue sharing policy developed in conjunction with the Fire Chiefs Association and adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 27, 1998. This amount represents 12% of the actual annual fiscal year change in Proposition 172 revenues. Funds are distributed to the fire agencies in the County’s unincorporated area following an annual decision process by the Fire Chiefs Association. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. 0.4% of approximately 16 million dollars in Proposition 172 funds were designated to the 2007-08 County Fire budget. The amount allocated was pursuant to the formula for distribution of Prop. 172 revenue that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 27, 1998, and represents 12% of the actual annual fiscal year change in Prop. 172 revenues. Funds are distributed to the fire agencies in the County’s unincorporated area following an annual decision process by the Fire Chiefs Association. The average age of fire engines ready to respond is 15 years, but County Fire recommends maintaining an average age of less than ten years. The replacement cost of an engine is approximately $350,000.12 The community of Paradise Park is located within the boundaries of CSA 48. (See Map, Appendix A.) Because of the distance to the nearest County Fire station, it is impractical for them to service this community, so Paradise Park’s fire protection services are contracted out to the City of Santa Cruz. Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): AGREES. LAFCO also note that the CSA 48 “island” along Highway 9/the San Lorenzo River comprises more than Paradise Park. It includes parts of Cowell Redwoods State Park, residences on the west side of Highway 9 across the road from Paradise Park, and Ocean Street Extension. Fees collected for fire marshal services do not cover the cost of operations. FDAC recommended recently that fire marshal staffing be reduced in an effort to match spending with revenues.13 Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. The two options would be to reduce costs or increase fees to cover the cost of services provided by the fire marshal. CSA 48 fully funds the position of addressing clerk in the General Services Department. The addressing clerk updates and maintains the database of street names and locations. All emergency personnel in the county have access to this updated information to accurately locate addresses. FDAC recommended recently that the County Office of Emergency Services assume the funding for this position.12 Response from the County: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Beginning in FY 07/08, the Clerk position’s time and associated cost has been distributed between the County Fire and Office of Emergency Services based on the jurisdiction receiving the benefit. Although the position itself is in the Fire budget unit, the actual costs are distributed based on the work and derived benefit. Cal Fire enters dispatch information into and draws statistics from the California All Incident Response System (CAIRS) database. CAIRS data was used to prepare the County Fire call reports presented to the Board of Supervisors. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection/Santa Cruz County Fire Department. Five-Year Mobile Equipment Replacement Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2011. County of Santa Cruz Fire Department Advisory Commission, draft minutes for the March 19, 2008, meeting. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. Additional data for the report on CAL FIRE firefighter deployment during non-fire season was obtained using the CAL FIRE computer aided dispatch system. A type of CAIRS report, Resources Activity, shows dispatch data for four different time points: dispatch, enroute, on-scene, return to quarter. Each incident is identified using the following fields: incident type, location, area and unit. Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: AGREES. The majority of emergency incidents are not fire related yet fire personnel and heavy equipment are dispatched routinely. (See Appendix B.) The Emergency Medical Services Integration Authority (EMSIA) was established to administer a program to integrate fire agency emergency medical services into a countywide system. In the rural areas of the county, firefighters are normally the first medically trained responders to arrive on the scene of an emergency. Response from the County: AGREES. Cal Fire and volunteer firefighters are trained and certified to provide basic life support services. Response from the County: AGREES. The County contracts with American Medical Response to provide medically necessary ambulance transport staffed with advanced life support paramedics Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. Response plans indicate more than one resource (engine, company officer) respond to each incident and this varies by type of incident. The fact that volunteer companies, adjoining district resources, or ambulances respond does not create a separate incident or CAIRS report. Individual resource or agency responses can be tracked by CAD data review. If engines are cancelled prior to arrival (e.g. false alarm or cancellation by law enforcement or other agency), it still qualifies as a response. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY AGREES. Response plans indicate more than one resource (engine, company officer) respond to each incident, which varies by type of incident. The fact that volunteer companies, adjoining district resources, or ambulances respond does not create a separate incident or CAIRS report. Individual resource or agency responses can be and are tracked by CAD data review. If engines are cancelled prior to arrival (e.g. false alarm or cancellation by law enforcement or other agency), the initial dispatch still qualifies as a response. The Board of Supervisors asked County Fire management to provide monthly incident reports to evaluate the effects of reduced staffing approved in February 2008. Matching a 10-day period of ECC audio dispatches 14 to corresponding CAIRS Resource Activity reports revealed • A single incident can have multiple responses. • Every dispatch is reported as an incident response regardless of actual on-scene arrival. Volunteer company responses are not included. • Adjoining fire district responses are not included. • Ambulance responses are not included. Response from the County: AGREES. Emergency calls from County Fire are first routed to the Santa Cruz Consolidated Emergency Communications Center (Netcom). Since the State requires Cal Fire to command its resources, Netcom must relay the initial call and pass control of the dispatch to the Cal Fire ECC. Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: AGREES. County Fire responds to medical emergency calls but is not a member of the Emergency Medical Services Integration Authority (EMSIA).15 The Cal Fire Chief is on the EMSIA Board of Directors only on behalf of the Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. Although it is difficult to quantify and varies throughout the year, the CAL FIRE Chief estimates that 33% of his time is expended on Santa Cruz County issues. Additional administrative and operations management is provided through two Deputy Chiefs. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. Although difficult to quantify, with variations throughout the year, the CAL FIRE Chief estimates that 33% of his time is expended on Santa Cruz County work and issues. The Cal Fire Unit Chief for both San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties is designated as the Chief of County Fire and the Santa Cruz County Fire Department. Approximately 20 percent of his time is spent on Santa Cruz County support. Response from the County: DISAGREES. The role of the FDAC is not related to the authority granted under the establishment of CSA 48. Rather the FDAC was established under the County Code to exercise responsibilities to ensure that the interests of the county fire department, career and volunteer fire companies and the citizens residing within county fire department jurisdiction are protected and promoted by monitoring, studying, and advising the County Fire Chief and the Board of Supervisors. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: DISAGREES. Firescan.net, http://www.firescan.net/ 15 “Surviving Sudden Cardiac Arrest: Improving the Odds with Automated External Defibrillators, -5. The role of the FDAC is not related to the authority granted under the establishment of CSA 48. Rather the FDAC was established under the County Code to exercise responsibilities to ensure that the interests of the county fire department, career and volunteer fire companies and the citizens residing within county fire department jurisdiction are protected and promoted by monitoring, studying, and advising the county fire chief and the board of supervisors. The FDAC represents CSA 48 and its role is to advise the County Fire Chief and the County Board of Supervisors. FDAC does not represent CSA 4. Response from the County: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. The membership of the Fire Department Advisory Commission was amended to reduce membership because the subject matter under consideration at most meetings was outside the scope of some then member representatives. As a result, those representatives did not attend every meeting. Representatives of these agencies are always available to attend any meetings where their participation would be helpful. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: PARTIALLY DISAGREES. As stated in the Board of Supervisors report in 2005, other issues besides attendance were considered in revising the membership of the FDAC. The county code for FDAC membership was amended in 2005 to reduce membership from 13 seats to 10 seats, eliminating two representatives from the Health Services Agency (one each from Emergency Medical Services and Environmental Health) and one from Public Works, due to their poor attendance records. Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: AGREES. Although several volunteer fire companies and Cal Fire maintain websites, there is no County Fire website. Conclusions 1. “County Fire” is a confusing term, implying the existence of a single department responsible for fire protection in the rural areas of the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The Board of Supervisors should examine fire marshal services for ways to reduce County Fire cost. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The County continually monitors the activities of the Fire Marshall’s office and adjusts operations according to the desired level of service within available resources. Response from the Santa Cruz County Fire Department Advisory Board: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. County continually monitors the activities of the Fire Marshall’s office. County Fire adjusts operations according to the desired level of service.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
A single list that included every dependent, independent and autonomous special district within Santa Cruz County did not exist.
F2:
In the 2005 Countywide Service Review published by LAFCO, 84 special districts are listed as being within LAFCO’s jurisdiction.
F3:
Not all special districts in the county are within LAFCO’s jurisdiction. Some may be operated directly by the County Board of Supervisors or their own board.
F4:
There are a total of 92 special districts in Santa Cruz County: 63 dependent, eight independent, and 21 autonomous (see Table). Table. Santa Cruz County Special Districts 2007-2008 Type of Special District D = Dependent I = Independent A = Autonomous * Not regulated by LAFCO TYPE NAME ACTIVITY FUNCTION D CSA 2 Place DeMer Subdivision Maintenance Health Sanitation D CSA 3 Aptos Seascape Maintain Area Roads D CSA 4 Pajaro Dunes Fire Protection Public Protection D CSA 5 Sand Dollar Beach Sewer Services Health Sanitation D CSA 7 Boulder Creek Sewer Collection & Treatment Health Sanitation D CSA 9 Hwy Safety & Lighting Capital Improvements Roads D* CSA 9A Residential Lighting Unincorporated Roads D* CSA 9B School Crossing Guard Live Oak School District Roads D* CSA 9C Refuse Disposal Transfer Stations Health Sanitation D* CSA 9D1 Road Maintenance Subzone 1 Roads D* CSA 9D2 Road Maintenance Subzone 2 Roads D* CSA 9D3 Road Maintenance Subzone 3 Roads D* CSA 9E Streetscape (Redevelopment) Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 10 Rolling Woods Sewer Collection & Treatment Health Sanitation D CSA 11 Parks & Recreation Recreation Parks Recreation D CSA 12 All Unsewered Areas Waste Disposal Enterprise Health Sanitation D* CSA 12-Capital Improvement Low Interest Loan Health Sanitation D* CSA 12A SLV Wastewater Mgmt San Lorenzo Wastewater Health Sanitation D CSA 13 Hutchinson Road Road Maintenance Roads D* CSA 13A Oak Flat Road Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 15 Huckleberry Woods Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 16 Robak Drive Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 17 Empire Acres Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 18 Whitehouse Canyon Dr Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 20 Trestle Beach Sewer Collection & Treatment Health Sanitation D CSA 21 Westdale Drive Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 22 Kelly Hill Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 23 Old Ranch Road Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 24 Pineridge Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 25 Viewpoint Road Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 26 Hidden Valley Road Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 28 Lomond Terrace Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 30 Glenwood Acres Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 32 View Circle Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 33 Redwood Drive Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 34 Larson Road Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 35 Country Estates Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 36 Forest Glen Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 37 Roberts Road Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 38 Sheriff Unincorporated Financing Public Protection D CSA 39 Reed Street Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 40 Ralston Way Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 41 Loma Prieta Drive Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 42 Sunlit Lane Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 43 Bonita-Encino Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 44 Sunbeam Woods Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 46 Pinecrest Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 47 Braemoor Drive Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 48 County Fire Fire Protection Public Protection D CSA 50 Vineyard Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 51 Hopkins Gulch Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 52 Upper Pleasant Valley Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 53 Mosquito Abatement Pest Control Health Sanitation D* CSA 53-North Mosquito Abatement Pest Control Health Sanitation D CSA 54 Summit West Water Enterprise Health Sanitation D CSA 55 Riverdale Park Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 56 Felton Grove Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 57 Graham Hill Drainage & Sewer Health Sanitation D CSA 58 Ridge Drive Road Maintenance Roads D CSA 59 McGaffigan Mill Road Road & Bridge Maintenance Roads A Alba Recreation and Park District Recreation and Park Parks recreation A Aptos-La Selva Fire Protection Services Fire Protection Public Protection A Ben Lomond Fire Protection District Fire Protection Public Protection A Boulder Creek Fire Protection District Fire Protection Public Protection A Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District Recreation and Park Parks recreation A Branciforte Fire Protection District Fire Protection Public Protection A Central Fire Protection District (Santa Cruz) Fire Protection Public Protection A Central Water District Santa Cruz Water Enterprise Water D Davenport Sanitation Collection, Treatment & Disposal Health Sanitation A Felton Fire Protection District Fire Protection Public Protection D Freedom Sanitation District Sewage Collection & Disposal Health Sanitation A La Selva Beach Recreation and Park District Recreation and Park Parks recreation A Lompico County Water District Water Enterprise Water A Opal Cliffs Recreation and Park District Recreation and Park Parks recreation A Pajaro Valley Fire Protection Service Fire Protection Public Protection I Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency Flood Control and Water Conservation Public Protection I Pajaro Storm Drain Maintenance District Drainage & Drainage Maintenance Public Protection A Pajaro Valley Cemetery District Cemetery Health Sanitation D Pasatiempo-Rolling Woods Sewer District Sewage Construction Health Sanitation A Reclamation District No. 2049 Land Reclamation and Levee Maintenance Public Protection I* Santa Cruz County Flood Control District Flood Control and Water Conservation Public Protection A Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation Dist. Resource Conservation Public Protection I* Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Transit Enterprise Transit I Santa Cruz Port District Harbor Port Enterprise Harbor A Santa Cruz County Sanitation Dist. (Santa Cruz) Waste Disposal Enterprise Health Sanitation A Salsipuedes Sanitary District Waste Disposal Enterprise Health Sanitation I San Lorenzo Valley County Water Water Enterprise Water A Scotts Valley Fire Protection District Fire Protection Public Protection A* Scotts Valley Fire Protection Zone A Fire Protection Public Protection I Scotts Valley Water District Water Enterprise Water I Soquel Creek Water District Water Enterprise Water A Zayante Fire Protection District Fire Protection Public Protection Sources County of Santa Cruz Autonomous Special Districts Final Budget 2007-2008 Countywide Service Review, LAFCO June 2005 Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller’s Office Santa Cruz County Fiscal Year 2007-08 Budget Santa Cruz LAFCO office Santa Cruz LAFCO website, http://www.santacruzlafco.org/
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
42 findings
F1:
Conclusions 2. Since the most pressing concern today is from where the money will come to maintain Medicare and Medicaid services for those who qualify under today’s system, extending it to include low-income families is not being discussed. 3. Santa Cruz County public, non-profit, and for-profit medical resources have worked together to make health care more accessible to low-income families. Commendation 1. The Human Services Department and the Health Services Agency are to be commended for ongoing focus on the delivery of adequate health care services to Santa Cruz County residents. Health Insurance Coverage 2000-2001 Grand Jury Recommendation 3: The Healthy Families Program should include parents in its coverage. Premiums should be set at more affordable levels in order to accelerate enrollment of families without insurance. Coverage should be maintained during short periods of seasonal unemployment. The Central Coast Alliance for Health should approach local employers to continue premium payments for families during short periods of seasonal unemployment to keep insurance coverage from lapsing. It should continue to expand the participation of specialists in its programs. County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. 2007-2008 Grand Jury Findings 12. The Healthy Families Program does not include parents in its coverage. Healthy Families insurance premiums vary depending on the health plan selected. Families receive a discounted premium if they select the local Community Provider Plan, which is the Central Coast Alliance for Health (the Alliance) in Santa Cruz County. The Alliance’s maximum monthly premium for a family with three or more children is $36 (or $108 per quarter). 13. Recent local funding contributions to the Healthy Kids program, which came primarily from Sutter Santa Cruz and Dominican Hospital, will allow the Alliance to move 295 children off the waiting list and into enrollment. 14. Seasonal unemployment only affects the eligibility of adults in a family receiving Medi-Cal. The Alliance reports that their Medi-Cal membership fluctuates by about five percent each year according to the growing season and migration of Medi-Cal recipients out of the area. Typically, a seasonal employee becomes eligible for Medi- Cal when the work season ends or slows down because the worker’s income decreases. When an individual’s work hours increase again, Medi-Cal eligibility could be lost due to the corresponding increase in income. Thus, an individual may qualify during periods of little work or unemployment but no longer qualify for Medi- Cal when working full-time. 15. Medi-Cal has no provision for continued eligibility if an adult no longer meets the criteria. However, children can maintain Medi-Cal eligibility for 12 months even if the adults in the family are terminated due to an increase in income or assets. 16. Although families pay no premiums for the Medi-Cal program, there are premiums associated with the Healthy Families and Healthy Kids programs. However, regardless of changes in family income, once a child is deemed eligible for Healthy Families or Healthy Kids, that child remains eligible for 12 months unless he or she becomes eligible for no-cost Medi-Cal, is covered by other health insurance, or turns 19. Children also lose Healthy Kids eligibility and coverage when they move out of Santa Cruz County. 17. In 2000, the Santa Cruz County population was 255,602. In 2007, the population increased slightly to an estimated 264,125 (3.3 percent). But the supply of health care specialists for Alliance programs has increased by almost 30 percent since that year. In 2000, the Alliance had an average of 499 specialists available to serve Santa Cruz County residents. As of March 2008, 697 specialists are available. 18. The Alliance collaborates with over 60 community coalitions and organizations to promote its programs, including the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department. It also promotes health care resources to the public at events, such as farmers’ markets, health fairs, community block parties, and other festivals. In addition, the Alliance publishes a provider bulletin in which providers are urged to encourage their Healthy Families and Healthy Kids patients to stay enrolled and thereby continue their health care coverage. 19. In March 2008, at California’s annual Medi-Cal Quality Conference, Central Coast Alliance for Health tied for first place with Health Plan of San Francisco, winning the Gold Award for the highest rate of preventive care services among all 39 Medi-Cal health plans in California. The Alliance also won a second place Silver Award for member satisfaction. Conclusions 4. Because Healthy Families is a state and federally funded health plan, Santa Cruz County cannot change the eligibility requirements for the program. 5. The 2000-2001 report recommended, “Coverage should be maintained during short periods of seasonal unemployment.” But, in fact, qualifying seasonal workers are covered while unemployed. They risk losing coverage when employed because their income may exceed guidelines. That issue has not been addressed by Medi-Cal or any county agency. 6. A public/private partnership exists in the county to provide affordable access to health care for low-income individuals and families.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency should continue to partner closely with the Central Coast Alliance for Health. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The Health Services Agency has a very close partnership with the Central Coast Alliance for Health and will continue working closely together.
F2:
While the County has pursued a goal of consolidating categorical health plans and simplifying eligibility requirements, there is no published plan or public commission in place to oversee it. Response from the County: DISAGREES. The Public Health Commission is charged with overseeing the operation of preventative health programs, medical clinics and medical programs, which includes review of eligibility requirements and categorical health plans.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency should continue to expand local outreach and enrollment resources for low-income persons in the county by continuing to partner with local agencies, both public and private. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The Health Services Agency will continue to expand outreach and enrollment resources throughout the County.
F3:
Eligibility requirements for health plans have not been simplified in any significant way, but the County has structured resources to guide applicants through the maze of health services and health insurance programs that are offered by non-profits and various government agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency should consider expanding contracts with the Alliance for other categorical health program administration, where and when appropriate. Response from the County: WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. The Health Services Agency will continue to work with the Alliance in considering future expansion.
F4:
Santa Cruz County now uses One-e-App, a web-based system for connecting families with a range of publicly funded health and social service programs. Applicants, usually with the help of Certified Application Assistants or county eligibility workers, enter their personal information to learn about and apply for programs that best meet their family's needs. System administrators, supervisors, and case management staff, can run reports and determine eligibility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
If the Health Services Agency is unable to transfer other appropriate categorical health program administration to the Alliance, the agency should adopt the Alliance’s principles of practice for categorical health program administration. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Although the meaning of “categorical health program administration” is unclear, the agency will continue to work closely with the Alliance on all programs allowed within the law. Commendation
F5:
Santa Cruz County Health Care Outreach Coalition expands access to health care coverage for uninsured county residents, promotes awareness of government- funded health insurance programs and conducts outreach to schools, community-based organizations, businesses, faith-based organizations, childcare providers, and the general community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
If First 5 no longer supports it, the Coalition for Health Care Outreach should be supported in the budget of the Health Services Agency. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. Although the Coalition for Health Care Outreach is very important, unless funding is identified to replace the $300,000 First Five contribution, such support cannot be guaranteed due to other competing high priority needs. Clinic Hours 2000-2001 Grand Jury Recommendation 6: Additional sessions in the evening and through the lunch hour would be a great advantage for family members who now must lose time at work to attend the clinics. Response from the County: This recommendation requires further analysis. 2007-2008 Grand Jury Findings 31. Three community clinics were visited in 2000, Salud Para La Gente in Watsonville, Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center, and Dientes Community Dental Clinic in Santa Cruz. The current Grand Jury has confirmed the following hours with employees at each clinic. All three clinics are closed Sundays and specified holidays. • Salud Para La Gente: • Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. • Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. • Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center: • Monday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Tuesdays and Thursdays, 8:20 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. • Wednesday, 12:20 to 5:00 p.m. • Friday, 8:20 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to noon • Dientes Community Dental Care: • Monday though Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (closed 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.) • Friday, 7:30 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. (closed noon to 1:00 p.m.) • Saturday, 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. 32. Some discrepancies exist between the clinic hours posted on websites and the hours provided in email and telephone communication.
F6:
The Benefits Call Center was established in 2000 to provide an easily accessible source of information for Medi-Cal recipients and to ensure that recipients complete all program requirements to maintain their coverage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Health Services Agency should encourage community clinics to accurately communicate clinic hours to the public. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED and will continue to be coordinated with the Safety Net Clinic Coalition. Dental Health Programs 2000-2001 Grand Jury Recommendation 7: Full-service dental health programs should be launched in county and community clinics. County Response: This recommendation has been and will continue to be implemented through the county’s community partners.
F7:
There is no new program, or expansion of an existing program, to extend health care to entire families instead of just individual members. California’s Medicare system, Medi-Cal, is governed by federal rules because it is mainly funded by the federal government. Medi-Cal has not acted to extend health care coverage to low-income families.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
While low reimbursement rates for medical providers inhibit the delivery of adequate health care to Medi-Cal and Healthy Families beneficiaries, county residents must depend on state and federal entities to resolve the problem. Coalition for Health Care Outreach 2000-2001 Grand Jury Recommendation 5: The Coalition for Health Care Outreach should be supported in the budget of the Health Services Agency upon expiration of the Packard Foundation grant. County Response: This recommendation is being implemented. 2007-2008 Grand Jury Findings
F8:
In 2008, Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (HI) is scheduled to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Since the Packard Foundation grant expired, the Coalition for Health Care Outreach has secured funds to continue successful operation in Santa Cruz County. Recommendation
F9:
Private health care providers, both physicians and dentists, have been recruited to treat patients who can’t afford to pay. They do this without remuneration as a community service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Clinic operations are no longer confined to daytime hours. The three clinics each offer some lunchtime and/or evening hours. All offer Saturday appointments as well.
F10:
In order to simplify access to categorical health programs, the 2000-2001 Grand Jury recommended using the Central Coast Alliance for Health as a model for administering them. Health Services Agency determined it would accomplish the same goal to make those programs part of the Alliance where possible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The inconsistencies of the posted clinic hours confuse and possibly inconvenience patients. Recommendation
F11:
Some Grand Jury recommendations hinged on the county becoming a demonstration site for the integrated provision of local health services subsidized by state and federal governments. This did not happen as explained in Demonstration Site Finding 1. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Health Services Agency continue to build the network of mental health services countywide. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
F12:
The Healthy Families Program does not include parents in its coverage. Healthy Families insurance premiums vary depending on the health plan selected. Families receive a discounted premium if they select the local Community Provider Plan, which is the Central Coast Alliance for Health (the Alliance) in Santa Cruz County. The Alliance’s maximum monthly premium for a family with three or more children is $36 (or $108 per quarter).
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Staff development, including improved training and new methods for reviewing program results, would increase the effectiveness of the Health Services Agency. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. HSA will further expand staff development as additional funding becomes available.
F13:
Recent local funding contributions to the Healthy Kids program, which came primarily from Sutter Santa Cruz and Dominican Hospital, will allow the Alliance to move 295 children off the waiting list and into enrollment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors support coordination of the various funding streams by the Health Services Agency so that available funds can be used to match the diverse needs of the clients. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. HSA will continue efforts to coordinate and increase various funding streams to meet the needs of our clients.
F14:
Seasonal unemployment only affects the eligibility of adults in a family receiving Medi-Cal. The Alliance reports that their Medi-Cal membership fluctuates by about five percent each year according to the growing season and migration of Medi-Cal recipients out of the area. Typically, a seasonal employee becomes eligible for Medi- Cal when the work season ends or slows down because the worker’s income decreases. When an individual’s work hours increase again, Medi-Cal eligibility could be lost due to the corresponding increase in income. Thus, an individual may qualify during periods of little work or unemployment but no longer qualify for Medi- Cal when working full-time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Board of Supervisors should ensure adequate funding for patients’ employment services, which play an important part in mental health treatment. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The Board of Supervisors restored $50,000 for employment services in the 2008-09 budget.
F15:
Medi-Cal has no provision for continued eligibility if an adult no longer meets the criteria. However, children can maintain Medi-Cal eligibility for 12 months even if the adults in the family are terminated due to an increase in income or assets.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
It would be beneficial for the Health Services Agency to continue developing mental health outreach and education programs to provide even more community social support for recovering patients, so they can feel welcome in their communities. Support resources can include churches and neighborhood organizations. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. HSA will continue developing outreach and educational programs as funding becomes available. Commendation
F16:
Although families pay no premiums for the Medi-Cal program, there are premiums associated with the Healthy Families and Healthy Kids programs. However, regardless of changes in family income, once a child is deemed eligible for Healthy Families or Healthy Kids, that child remains eligible for 12 months unless he or she becomes eligible for no-cost Medi-Cal, is covered by other health insurance, or turns
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
The Grand Jury urges the Health Services Agency to continue to seek grants and other alternative sources for funds to pay competitive salaries to health professionals. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED and will continue to be a high priority for the Health Services Department.
F17:
In 2000, the Santa Cruz County population was 255,602. In 2007, the population increased slightly to an estimated 264,125 (3.3 percent). But the supply of health care specialists for Alliance programs has increased by almost 30 percent since that year. In 2000, the Alliance had an average of 499 specialists available to serve Santa Cruz County residents. As of March 2008, 697 specialists are available.
F18:
The Alliance collaborates with over 60 community coalitions and organizations to promote its programs, including the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department. It also promotes health care resources to the public at events, such as farmers’ markets, health fairs, community block parties, and other festivals. In addition, the Alliance publishes a provider bulletin in which providers are urged to encourage their Healthy Families and Healthy Kids patients to stay enrolled and thereby continue their health care coverage.
F19:
Children also lose Healthy Kids eligibility and coverage when they move out of Santa Cruz County.
F20:
A comprehensive approach is the most pressing need in the system. Along with counseling and medication, affordable housing, tenured living spaces, and job development are all necessary for proper treatment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
Since Medi-Cal and Healthy Families reimbursement rates are set by state and federal government agencies, the County of Santa Cruz has no authority to revise them.
F21:
While all “safety net clinics” are not geared toward families, they are putting forth their best efforts to meet the various needs of the uninsured and Medi-Cal patients in Santa Cruz County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
Congressman Sam Farr, the California Medical Association (CMA), and others have called the reimbursement fee schedules for county doctors inequitable and continue to work to require that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services fix a system viewed as unfair to local qualified participants. Conclusion
F22:
In June of 2001 the Packard Foundation grant expired. In 2007-2008, funding for the Coalition for Health Care Outreach (Coalition) came from two sources, First 5 California (First 5) and Medi-Cal Administrative Activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
In June of 2001 the Packard Foundation grant expired. In 2007-2008, funding for the Coalition for Health Care Outreach (Coalition) came from two sources, First 5 California (First 5) and Medi-Cal Administrative Activities.
F23:
The budget for fiscal year was $403,000. First 5 funded $300,000, and the Coalition hopes to receive the additional $103,000 from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R23:
The budget for fiscal year was $403,000. First 5 funded $300,000, and the Coalition hopes to receive the additional $103,000 from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities.
F24:
The County works as a middleman for both sources of Coalition funding. Medi-Cal Administrative Activities
Related Recommendations (1)
R24:
The County works as a middleman for both sources of Coalition funding. Medi-Cal Administrative Activities
F25:
During the month of September, the Coalition completes a “time survey” to establish the annual cost of outreach activities in excess of what First 5 already pays. The federal government agency Medi-Cal Administrative Activities is billed that excess cost. The turnaround for payment is generally about three years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R25:
During the month of September, the Coalition completes a “time survey” to establish the annual cost of outreach activities in excess of what First 5 already pays. The federal government agency Medi-Cal Administrative Activities is billed that excess cost. The turnaround for payment is generally about three years.
F26:
The County supports various organizations associated with the Coalition throughout the year and receives the money from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities. Many variables determine what work is being done and how it is being claimed. On average, the Coalition received approximately 75 percent of what they predicted in their budget from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities. The County then funds the remaining budget. First 5 California
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
The County supports various organizations associated with the Coalition throughout the year and receives the money from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities. Many variables determine what work is being done and how it is being claimed. On average, the Coalition received approximately 75 percent of what they predicted in their budget from Medi-Cal Administrative Activities. The County then funds the remaining budget. First 5 California
F27:
The State of California retains 20 percent of the money First 5 receives, and 80 percent is distributed to the 58 counties throughout California based on the number of children born in the county. Santa Cruz receives approximately $2,700,000 annually.
Related Recommendations (1)
R27:
The State of California retains 20 percent of the money First 5 receives, and 80 percent is distributed to the 58 counties throughout California based on the number of children born in the county. Santa Cruz receives approximately $2,700,000 annually.
F28:
First 5 has three established goals: healthy children, children learning and ready for school, and healthy families. Allowing for local decision-making, the First 5 Santa Cruz County Commission determines how to distribute funds based on a three-year strategic plan and annual contracts. Money provided to the Coalition by First Five has been designated as outreach funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R28:
First 5 has three established goals: healthy children, children learning and ready for school, and healthy families. Allowing for local decision-making, the First 5 Santa Cruz County Commission determines how to distribute funds based on a three-year strategic plan and annual contracts. Money provided to the Coalition by First Five has been designated as outreach funds.
F29:
First 5 reimburses the County for payments made to community agencies for contracted services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R29:
First 5 reimburses the County for payments made to community agencies for contracted services.
F30:
In the fall of 2008, First 5 will create a new three-year strategic plan. This may or may not result in continued funds for the Coalition for Health Care Outreach. Conclusion
Related Recommendations (1)
R30:
In the fall of 2008, First 5 will create a new three-year strategic plan. This may or may not result in continued funds for the Coalition for Health Care Outreach. Conclusion
F44:
The Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (Division), a division of the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency, works with and through many groups to offer a wide range of mental health care services including emergency shelter, transitional housing, supported housing, dual diagnosis treatment, crisis intervention, case management, and peer support. Other services available to clients are assessment, counseling, medication support, and referrals. Spanish translation is offered, as is an Appeal Resolution Process for anyone who is denied assistance. The following is a partial list of these resources. Adult residential treatment is offered at • Transition House, 10 beds • Paloma House, 12 beds • Pioneer House, eight beds • Opal Cliffs, 15 beds • El Dorado Center, 16 beds • Darwin House, 15 beds • Front St., Inc., 11 beds • River Street Shelter, 20 beds reserved for people referred by County Mental Health Outpatient treatment and/or social rehabilitation are available at • North County Mental Health Center • South County Clinic • Community Support Services • Dominican Hospital Behavioral Health • Pioneer House Dual Diagnosis Day Program • Community Connection Academy • Front Street Day Rehabilitation Program Self help resources include • Mental Health Client Action Network • Mariposa Activity Center • Community Connection Mental Health Resource Center and Career Services • Community Support Services Community Organizers Program Ongoing services for the protection of low-income mentally ill residents include • Advocacy, Inc. (Patient Rights) • Public Guardian’s Office
F45:
It is hard to retain staff; therefore, continual training programs are necessary. Many new employees come from the Cabrillo College Health Science/Community Health programs.
F46:
Various federal, state, county and private agencies fund mental health treatment in our county. Mental health has made effective use of these grants and programs. Some of these sources (known as funding streams) are designated for specific and limited uses. Clients often present with a variety of issues and staff sometimes has difficulty matching funds to the specific needs of the client. Services offered to individuals and families will be further restricted by potential state and county budget cuts in the coming year.
F47:
Training in cultural sensitivity is emphasized and employees are trained within their department as well as by outside resources.
F48:
Some families have difficulty acknowledging the existence of a mental health problem. This can be a cultural issue or a matter of pride. Successful mental health outreach and education programs have worked as a part of the network of general health services.
F49:
Access to services is difficult for South County residents because most service sites are located in Santa Cruz. Public transit offers only a few routes and limited hours of operation. The Division is attempting to expand county services and to create more partnerships with community agencies in South County.
F50:
The Division works with Senior Network Services but does not yet have an early intervention program for seniors.
F51:
Among the ongoing concerns of the Division is the ever-present worry of patients exhibiting unexpected antisocial behavior. Conclusions
F60:
Currently Santa Cruz County uses eight nearby counties in salary surveys: Monterey, Santa Clara, Alameda, Napa, Sonoma, Marin, Solano and San Mateo. For the most part, these are more similar to Santa Cruz than the nine counties formerly used in that they are not strictly agricultural and have living costs comparable to Santa Cruz.
Related Recommendations (1)
R60:
Currently Santa Cruz County uses eight nearby counties in salary surveys: Monterey, Santa Clara, Alameda, Napa, Sonoma, Marin, Solano and San Mateo. For the most part, these are more similar to Santa Cruz than the nine counties formerly used in that they are not strictly agricultural and have living costs comparable to Santa Cruz.
F61:
Recruiting and retaining physicians and other medical professionals is uniquely difficult in Santa Cruz County because it is labeled by Medicare as a rural county. The Medicare reimbursement rate is the same as Butte, Imperial and other counties with a much lower cost of living.
Related Recommendations (1)
R61:
Recruiting and retaining physicians and other medical professionals is uniquely difficult in Santa Cruz County because it is labeled by Medicare as a rural county. The Medicare reimbursement rate is the same as Butte, Imperial and other counties with a much lower cost of living.
F62:
The county health programs must compete with Dominican and Sutter for physicians and other medical professionals. Hospitals are in a unique position to pay higher salaries as their Medicare reimbursements are based on actual costs. A national Medicare study released in 2007 shows hospitals in Santa Cruz County have the highest labor costs in the country, which local health officials say means higher medical costs and insurance premiums for patients. This situation creates a difficult challenge when it comes to recruiting medical professionals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R62:
The county health programs must compete with Dominican and Sutter for physicians and other medical professionals. Hospitals are in a unique position to pay higher salaries as their Medicare reimbursements are based on actual costs. A national Medicare study released in 2007 shows hospitals in Santa Cruz County have the highest labor costs in the country, which local health officials say means higher medical costs and insurance premiums for patients. This situation creates a difficult challenge when it comes to recruiting medical professionals.
F63:
Salaries and working conditions for physicians and other medical professionals employed by the County are negotiated with the respective unions. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R63:
Salaries and working conditions for physicians and other medical professionals employed by the County are negotiated with the respective unions. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R31:
Three community clinics were visited in 2000, Salud Para La Gente in Watsonville, Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center, and Dientes Community Dental Clinic in Santa Cruz. The current Grand Jury has confirmed the following hours with employees at each clinic. All three clinics are closed Sundays and specified holidays. • Salud Para La Gente: • Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. • Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. • Santa Cruz Women’s Health Center: • Monday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Tuesdays and Thursdays, 8:20 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. • Wednesday, 12:20 to 5:00 p.m. • Friday, 8:20 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to noon • Dientes Community Dental Care: • Monday though Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (closed 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.) • Friday, 7:30 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. (closed noon to 1:00 p.m.) • Saturday, 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
R32:
Some discrepancies exist between the clinic hours posted on websites and the hours provided in email and telephone communication. Conclusions
R52:
In the County of Santa Cruz, “safety net clinics,” (i.e., county or nonprofit clinics), take patients that are uninsured regardless of their ability to pay.
R53:
Current public and non-profit clinics, as a whole, have not been reconfigured to family-oriented and preventative care, but rather each clinic has an area or multiple areas of concentration which are listed below. Santa Cruz Clinics Santa Cruz Women’s Health • Primary Care for Women and Children • Family Planning • Health Benefits Advocacy • Illness Prevention and Health Promotion • Gynecology and Prenatal Care • Pediatrics • Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Naturopathy Westside Health Center (Planned Parenthood) • Primary Care Services • Family Planning • Health Benefits Advocacy • Illness Prevention and Health Promotion • Obstetrics and Gynecology • Pediatrics • Abortion Services Emeline Clinic • Primary Care Services • Walk-in Immunizations • Health Benefits Advocacy • Pediatrics • Child Health and Disability Prevention • Orthopedics • Family Planning • Laboratory, Radiology, and Pharmacy Coral Street Clinic • Urgent Care and Primary Care • Integrated Case Management • Mental Health and Substance Abuse • Health Benefits Advocacy • Counseling Beach Flats Clinic • Primary Care Services • Women’s Health • Pediatrics • Family Planning • Dental Care • HIV Testing • Obstetrics and Gynecology Dientes Community Dental Care • Emergency Dental Care • Full Range of Dental Services • Oral Health Advocacy Dominican Pediatric Clinic • Pediatric Services Elderday Adult Day Health (Salud Para La Gente) • Adult Day Health Watsonville Clinics Salud Para La Gente • Primary Care Services • Family Planning • Dental Care • Eye Clinic / Optometry • Health Prevention and Promotion • Health Benefits Agency • Pediatrics • Obstetrics and Gynecology Diabetes Health Center • Diabetes Self-Management • Medical Nutrition Therapy • Group Classes • Insulin Training • Glucometer Training Clinica del Valle Del Pajaro • Primary Care Services • Dental Care • Family Planning • Women’s Health • Pediatrics • Child Health and Disability Prevention • Obstetrics and Gynecology South County Clinic • Primary Care Services • Immunizations • Health Benefits Advocacy • Pediatrics • Child Health and Disability Prevention • HIV Prevention • Laboratory • Radiology • Breast Cancer Early Detection Programs • Family Planning Clinic Mariposa (Planned Parenthood Mar Monte) • Primary Care Services • Family Planning • Health Benefits Advocacy • Pediatrics • Obstetrics and Gynecology • Illness Prevention and Health Promotion Children’s Resource Center • Pediatrics • Child Health and Disability Prevention • Dental Care Green Valley Clinic • Obstetrics and Gynecology • Women’s Health
R54:
Santa Cruz Women’s Health and Planned Parenthood specialize in women’s health, family care, and reproductive health.
R55:
Specialists are available when necessary, usually through Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center, which provides some free services to the community.
R56:
The County of Santa Cruz currently employs 20 full-time doctors: five primary care physicians (including two pediatricians), and 15 psychiatrists, four of which are bilingual.
R57:
The recruitment of allied health practitioners and full-time county physicians is often a challenge. Response from the County: AGREES. The Health Services Agency and the Personnel Department have developed a number of successful initiatives to increase the County’s ability to recruit for various classes of health practitioners and physicians.
R58:
The high cost of housing in Santa Cruz County makes recruiting primary care physicians difficult.
R59:
Psychiatry has only one vacant position, and nurse practitioner positions are filled through a “feeder program” from San Jose State University. Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The 2002-2003 Grand Jury made several findings regarding the expense, practicality, and obsolescence of the county’s mainframe system. The County agreed in substance with this assessment. These findings from 2002-2003 included: • ISD uses mainframe computer hardware first introduced in the 1990s, which was an upgrade from an earlier version. • Mainframe architectures are expensive to sustain and difficult to evolve to current industry best practices such as web access. • The County continues to use a mainframe internal billing structure to allocate ISD expenses across county operations. This requires administrative personnel involved in determining and allocating costs of mainframe usage for the purpose of interdepartmental billing. • ISD understands the ultimate need to eliminate the mainframe computer operations by migrating to less expensive current technology, but does not have a formal plan or time line for accomplishing this. No Response Required
F2:
On more than one occasion prior Grand Juries have found that outdated software applications are impacting the performance of county departments, such as the Sheriff’s Office and Planning. The County has agreed that the systems need updating. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES 40 Information Services Department – Stagnation or Migration? 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F3:
In 2009 the County relies on substantially the same hardware, although software upgrades and revisions have been implemented in the intervening years. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY DISAGREES The County has utilized the same IBM Mainframe hardware and software platform for the last 8 years. However, other hardware (Windows servers) has continued to be replaced on a cycle based on manufacturer end of life support (normally every 4 – 5 years). Furthermore the County has moved towards virtual servers (VMWare) on IBM blades which lower the cost of ownership and ease replacement cycle impacts on existing software applications.
F4:
Currently only two ISD employees are thoroughly trained and familiar with operating and supporting the mainframe. Both employees are eligible for retirement. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DISAGREES ISD has 6 mainframe programmers and 6 operators that support the mainframe environment. Each of those mainframe programmers is skilled in different business applications, and some cross-support is in place. While half of the mainframe programmers are eligible for retirement, none have indicated they plan to retire before migrating their primary application off the mainframe.
F5:
On April 1, 2007, IBM stopped offering support for mainframes such as the County’s 7060-H50. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – DISAGREES IBM ended support of the MVS operating system for 7060_H50 on April 1, 2007. The County has never run MVS on their mainframe systems. Currently, the County is fully licensed and supported for both hardware and software for the existing mainframe platform that is in place.
F6:
In the fiscal 2008 year-end report submitted to the Board of Supervisors, the county’s independent auditors, Caporicci & Larson, noted that: “The County’s Disaster Recovery Plan was developed 25 years ago and was not updated to address the new technologies. The Disaster Recovery Plan details the actions required should a disaster occur that affects the computer operations of the County.” Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES ISD has started work on a Continuity of Government plan with a tentative schedule of completion in three years. This is much larger than an IT disaster recovery plan and will involve most departments at the County. Information Services Department – Stagnation or Migration? 41 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses
F7:
In 2002, ISD began a project to transition the Planning Department’s code enforcement system from the mainframe-based Automated Land Use System (ALUS) to a non-mainframe Hansen® system. As of today Planning is still relying on ALUS for permits and land use planning, while running certain code enforcement processes on a dual-entry basis (entering information into both ALUS and Hansen®). Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES In 2007, Planning began using the Code Enforcement module of the Hansen application. All new Code Enforcement cases were entered into Hansen exclusively. Old cases remained in ALUS as did Planning and Building Permits. So, while two systems are in use currently, there is no dual-entry and data is only stored in one system. When Hansen goes into production with the remaining modules, data from ALUS will be migrated to Hansen. At that time, ALUS will be retired and Hansen will become the one and only system used. The production release date is currently scheduled for the end of calendar year 2009.
F8:
In 2009 the following county departments still rely on applications running on the mainframe: County Administrative Office, Treasurer/Tax Collector, Assessors Office, Auditor Controller, Purchasing, Payroll/Personnel, Planning Department, Probation Department, Recorder’s Office, Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES In fiscal years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the County’s IT mainframe migration strategy called for 8 mainframe business applications to be migrated off of the mainframe. The District Attorney’s system was migrated off the mainframe in 2003. In 2009, the Budget system, owned by the CAO but used by all departments, was migrated to a web-based application. The Payroll/Personnel system was migrated to a web-based application in 2009. The Sheriff’s Records and Jail Management systems are currently slated to be migrated off the mainframe in fall of 2009. The Probation Department’s Case Management System is also planned to migrate off the mainframe by the end of 2009. The Planning Department will complete its migration in 2009. For more details on the Planning Department’s applications, see also the answer to question 7. The new Property Tax system, used by the Auditor, Assessor and Tax Collector, is the third and final phase of the project plan and will be moved into production by 2011. The General Ledger and Purchasing systems will be the last applications to be migrated off the mainframe, dependent on County resources to pay for and implement the project.
F9:
Within the last year, the County has approved projects that will move the following operations off the mainframe: • Tax system ($2,530,000 contract awarded August 5, 2008) 42 Information Services Department – Stagnation or Migration? 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses • Sheriff’s records management system and jail management system ($475,505 jail management and $478,370 record’s management contracts awarded January 13, 2009) • Probation case management system ($474,988 contract awarded January 13, 2009) • Recorder’s system ($246,843 contract awarded March 3, 2009) Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES The Recorder’s system was replaced on July 20, 2009. It was not a mainframe application.
F10:
As applications are shifted off, the cost of maintaining the mainframe has been allocated among departments still using it. The number of users has decreased, so charges to each remaining department have increased, although in the 2009-2010 department budget enough cost reduction has been achieved so that there is no need to increase charges to users. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – AGREES
F11:
ISD is working toward being mainframe-independent within four years. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – PARTIALLY AGREES The County’s mainframe migration plan currently has Board-approved plans and funding for migrating eight applications off of the mainframe. In fiscal year 2008-09, two applications were migrated off the mainframe to web-based solutions. In 2009- 10, an additional six migration projects have been funded and five applications are currently scheduled to be replaced. The remaining project is entering its third and final phase and is targeted to be migrated off the mainframe in 2011. The few remaining applications on the mainframe do not currently have project plans or funding sources to replace them. Nonetheless, ISD and the County remained committed to the goal of mainframe independence.
F12:
A new ISD Director was appointed in 2007. Prior to his appointment, the department operated with a mindset of internally developing and supporting custom applications based on the mainframe architecture. No Response Required
F13:
All the county employees this Grand Jury met with thought that ISD communication and responsiveness had improved over the last couple of years. Information Services Department – Stagnation or Migration? 43 2008–2009 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report with Responses No Response Required Conclusions
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should provide the resources necessary to allow Information Services Department to complete migration off the mainframe on schedule. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED The current mainframe migration projects fully utilize the available ISD staff. While ISD would appreciate more staffing we are fully aware of the financial exigencies facing the County.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should monitor ISD progress to ensure adherence to the migration schedule. Response: County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors – HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED ISD has been reporting status on the Property Tax System to the Board of Supervisors and currently reports status on all projects to department heads every quarter.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Find the response grid that appears near the end of each Grand Jury report, look for the row with the name of the entity you represent, and then only respond to those Findings and/or Recommendations listed on that row.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Send a hard copy of your response to: The Honorable Judge Paul Marigonda Santa Cruz Superior Court 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060
F2:
Provide the title and page number from the Grand Jury report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Send an electronic version of your response via email to the Grand Jury: [email protected]. Please send all responses as either Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF files. Due Dates Elected officials or administrators are required to respond within sixty days of the Grand Jury Report’s publication; responses by the governing body of any public entity are required within ninety days. Instructions for Respondents Penal Code § 933.05 1) For purposes of subdivision (b) of § 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: a) The respondent agrees with the finding. b) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. 2) For purposes of subdivision (b) of § 933, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: a) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action; b) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation; c) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report; or d) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 3) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county department headed by an elected officer, both the department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her department. 4) A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. 5) During an investigation, the Grand Jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the Grand Jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. 6) A Grand Jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the Grand Jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
F3:
Provide the date of your response.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county department headed by an elected officer, both the department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her department.
F4:
For Findings a. Provide a copy the original Finding. b. Respond with one of the following: i. AGREE. ii. PARTIALLY AGREE (specify and explain disagreement). iii. PARTIALLY DISAGREE (specify and explain disagreement). iv. DISAGREE (specify and explain disagreement).
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
F5:
For Recommendations a. Provide a copy the original recommendation. b. Respond with one of the following: i. Has been implemented. ii. Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future (specify expected implementation date). iii. Requires further analysis (specify the type of analysis required and the expected completion date, not to exceed six months) iv. Will not be implemented (either because it is not warranted or is unreasonable; please include an explanation).
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
During an investigation, the Grand Jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the Grand Jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
F6:
If responding to more than one report, respond to each in a separate document or on separate pages of one document.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
If responding to more than one report, respond to each in a separate document or on separate pages of one document.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
For an example, see Response Report to the 2006-2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report: http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/grandjury. If you have questions about the response report, please contact the Grand Jury by calling (831) 454-2099 or by email: [email protected]. Where to Respond
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
36 findings
F1:
The Watsonville Library System's funds come from the following sources: • Quarter-cent sales tax (Measures B and R) • Watsonville General Fund • Property taxes • Library fee and fine revenue • State of California Public Library Fund grant • Donations
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the library explore new partnerships with local businesses as a supplemental funding source. Response from Watsonville Library Director: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The Library Director is exploring relationships with several local businesses such as Target, Starbucks, Monterey Bay Caterers, Crossroads Book Store and others. We are also continuing our relationships with other agencies such as the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, Cabrill0 College and First 5 of Santa Cruz County. These agencies often provide avenues of collaboration that result in grant funding.
F2:
The projected general operating budget for 2007-08 includes: • $2,101,614 from Measure B, which is allocated using a population-based formula. • $501,403 from Watsonville General Fund contribution (a fixed amount that is protected from budget cuts due to a Measure B stipulation).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Since Watsonville’s population is growing, the Library Director, City Manager and the Library Board of Trustees should monitor annually the population-based allocation of countywide sales tax money to ensure the library receives its fair share. Response from Watsonville City Manager, Watsonville Library Director and Board of Trustees: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The procedure put in place to safeguard the allocation of the county-wide sales tax money is monitored quarterly. Under the directive of the Joint Powers Authority Finance committee, the County’s assistant administrative officer prepares quarterly reports that are distributed to the City Manager, Library Director and Watsonville’s Administrative Services Director (Finance). Any discrepancies are reported to the county and corrections are made, if necessary. The Library Board is informed of any problems with this reporting system and they then give direction to the Library Director to act as necessary. The City Administration, the Library Director and the Library Board of Trustees have been diligent in assuring that the Watsonville Library is receiving its fair share of this money. We will continue to do so.
F3:
The overall budget includes $125,000 for materials and books for both the Main Library and Freedom branch. This amount has not changed in the past four years. No additional funding was obtained for materials for the new library.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Library Director should request that the City of Watsonville increase the materials budget. More bilingual (Spanish-English) and Spanish language publications should be obtained for the interested public. The purchase of additional materials will enhance the depth of subject coverage. Response from Watsonville Library Director and from Watsonville City Manager: HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. The increase in the materials budget is of importance to the collection development goals of the library in all areas. With the passage of Measure R, it will be possible for the library to make long-range plans for the allocation of funds for collection development along with plans for other desirable projects for the library. It is impossible to give an anticipated date when additional funds will become available for increasing the materials budget. In the meantime, the library staff is pursuing grants and donations that may be used in increase funds for the purchase of materials. At this time, city finances are dedicated to other areas of the general fund such as police and fire services.
F4:
The new Main Library was completed within its allocated $9,000,000 budget.
F5:
In May 2005, the California Cultural and Historical Endowment awarded a grant of $300,074 to the City of Watsonville for the construction of the California Agricultural Workers’ History Center at the new library. Due to a delay in paperwork processing by the Watsonville Public Library, the final grant amount paid was $130,000. Response from Watsonville Library Director and from Watsonville City Manager: PARTIALLY AGREE. Funds from the California Cultural and Historical Endowment (CCHE) grant were used for the building of the California Agricultural Workers’ History Center (CAWHC). Before being awarded the grant, a schedule of when specific construction tasks would be done and how much each part would cost and what percentage of that cost could be attributed to the CAWHC had to be estimated. With the complexity of this the multi-use, multi-story Civic Plaza Building and gauging when the same tasks would be worked on at the same time in different parts of the building, this estimate was very difficult to establish. With the cooperation of the construction manager, the library was able to submit the information required and the library was awarded the grant. It was made clear as part of the grant agreement that funds could not be paid if work was begun on any part of the project before the required forms were submitted to the CCHE. Working with the project manager that had been assigned to the project from the CCHE, appropriate documents were completed on time and sent on to the CCHE for approval. The Library Director did not receive any communication from the project manager to alert her to any problems with the documents submitted. At no time did the project manager mention that there were problems with the documents. It wasn’t until the first project manager left the CCHE that a new project manager alerted the Library Director to the problem with the previously submitted documents. When the new project manager reviewed the paperwork, it became clear that a portion of the funds would not be awarded because the work on the construction of the CAWHC had begun before the filed documents had been approved. In conclusion, the Library Director did submit the required paperwork to the State Library at the appropriate time. Due to a change in staff at the state level and the complexity of the design of the library as part of the Civic Center Plaza, the requirements for full funding of the grant award were not met. Unfortunately, the Library Director was not informed that the filing was done incorrectly until the time had passed to correct the error without incurring the partial loss of funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Procedures for completion of grant applications should be established and monitored carefully, so that opportunities for such funding are not missed. More than one staff member should be aware of the grant application process to ensure impending deadlines are met. Response from Watsonville Library Director and from Watsonville City Manager: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The Principal Librarian works closely with the Library Director and is kept informed of all grant applications and deadlines.
F6:
The CAWHC was financed largely through grant awards to the City of Watsonville’s Public Library from the California Cultural and Historical Endowment, a $100,000 donation from the Ow Family Trust, and a $10,000 federal technology-matching grant for equipment. Staffing
F7:
The Watsonville Public Library employs approximately 50 staff, 14 of whom are full- time. Some students are employed part-time to assist staff.
F8:
There are seven librarians, including the Library Director.
F9:
Staffing both floors of the new library requires a minimum of seven employees, more than double the number required at the single story former Main Library.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
In order to operate with greater efficiency and safety, the new library should hire additional staff to handle the increased patronage. Response from Watsonville City Manager and Watsonville Library Director: WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. There is no doubt that additional staff is needed at the new library. This will happen as soon as additional long-term funding becomes available. It is unreasonable to have expectations of this happening within the next fiscal year, however warranted this recommendation may be.
F10:
Since more employees are needed to keep the new Main Library open but no additional hires are planned, staff who previously only worked behind the scenes are being assigned to work some hours on the floor with the public. Response from Watsonville Library Director and from Watsonville City Manager: AGREE. When hired, all employees are informed that they may be working with the public. It is good practice to schedule employees to work with the public in an effort to keep them aware of the public’s needs. All staff members were given advance notification and additional training to make sure they would be comfortable working with the public in our new environment. It is the intention of the Library Director that all staff members will continue to work with the public for some portion of their work week, even when it becomes possible to hire additional employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Library supervisors should consider the experience and desires of the staff working with the public. Personnel assignments should be best suited to their interest and abilities, when possible. Those lacking experience to effectively communicate and interact with the public should receive additional training. Response from Watsonville Library Director: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Whenever possible, staff member’s p
F11:
Neither the Main Library nor the parking garage has a security person on duty to ensure patron and staff safety. Response from Watsonville Library Director and from Watsonville City Manager: PARTIALLY AGREE. While there is no security guard at either the library or the parking garage, the garage is staffed by a parking attendant. There are also help buttons posted throughout the garage, should they be needed. The library staff leaves the building together at closing time and walks each other to the designated parking spots for library staff. There are no indications that the garage is not a safe place to park.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
A garage attendant should be on duty at night until 9 pm to alleviate safety concerns for patrons and library staff. Similarly, patrons and staff could benefit by having some designated reserved parking spaces available on the ground floor of the garage. Response from Watsonville City Manager and Watsonville Library Director: 1) REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS, 2) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED, 3) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. 1) There is a parking attendant on duty until 7:00 pm. Further analysis of the need to extend those hours will take place as funding becomes available. 2) The issue of designated parking on the first level of the parking garage for staff has already been implemented. 3) Providing designated parking for the public on the first level has not been implemented because it actually makes it more difficult for the public to reach the library when they park on the first level of the garage. The first level parking area exits onto either the service alley or Rodriguez St. – neither of which are close to the library’s entrance. We have provided the public with information on the easiest way to access the library from the garage.
F12:
The Watsonville Library and the Freedom branch share one full-time custodian. Custodial staffing has not been increased since the opening of the new library.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The City of Watsonville should add library custodial staff to provide regular and on- demand service at both branches. Response from Watsonville City Manager and Watsonville Library Director: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The recruitment for an additional custodian has been completed.
F13:
Most employees belong to one of the three following bargaining units: clerical- technical, mid-managers, and management.
F14:
The Literacy Center, Library Link, and Friends of the Library all utilize volunteers. Facilities
Related Recommendations (2)
R13:
The library should consider establishing a volunteer coordinator position to actively recruit volunteers from community sources such as local senior centers, high schools and colleges. Response from Watsonville Library Director: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. This is an existing position that has been helping the library for the last year with the recruitment of volunteers.
R14:
Within the purview of union rules, volunteers might be trained to help with library tasks. The Library could offer student internships, and volunteers could act as docents to orient visitors to the new facility. Response from Watsonville Library Director: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The library has always used volunteers. We have volunteers who help mend books, work with the LibraryLink outreach program, help with the Opportunity to Read literacy program and other efforts. We are currently recruiting for library docents and after school reading partners.
F15:
The Main Library is a two-story, 42,000 square foot facility within the Civic Center, which has an adjoining parking garage.
F16:
Patrons must walk around the block from the library’s entrance to the parking garage, as there is no direct access.
F17:
The first floor of the Main Library is dedicated to children’s services, which includes a craft room and a theater. This floor also provides five self-checkout stations, a circulation desk, and a reference desk. The second floor includes two conference rooms; four study rooms, a large capacity community room with kitchenette, the California Agricultural Workers’ History Center, a teen room (“Teen Space”), and a computer lab.
F18:
A federal technology-matching grant tripled the number of computers to 90. Patrons have access to computers in the computer lab, Teen Space, and the children’s area. Both walk-up and Americans With Disabilities Act compliant stations are also available. Patrons can also check out laptops for use on the premises.
F19:
An additional 8,000 square feet for expansion is available on the second floor.
F20:
Although the Main Library has an after-hours book deposit, it does not have a book deposit accessible by car. Services
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
The Grand Jury recommends that library management consult with the City of Watsonville to establish a location for a drive-up book drop at the Main Library. Response from Watsonville Library Director: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. During the building phase of the library and the Civic Center Plaza, all possible locations for a drive-up book deposit were explored. There are no viable locations which can be used for this service.
F21:
The computer/Internet services include • Over 40 databases, including NewsBank and InfoTrac, five databases in Spanish, two for children, and four accessible only in person at the library. • Wireless Internet (WiFi) service. • Both adult and children’s computers accessible in Spanish and English. • MyLibraryDVTM (videos-on-demand), a service enabling patrons with broadband Internet connections to download and view a selection of movies and educational programs at home. This service is available to computers using a Microsoft Windows operating system (Windows 2000 and more recent). • Spanish and English versions of the library website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
While computers using Microsoft Windows 2000 or newer Microsoft computer operating systems can use MyLibraryDVTM, the library’s technical services staff should investigate other alternative video downloading to broaden accessibility to those using Mac or other system software. Response from Watsonville Library Director: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. It is impossible to accommodate all of the various systems that library patrons may be using to access information from their homes. The library acquires various products to be used within the library with systems we support. If some of those products work with the personal equipment our customers own, that is a bonus. Whenever we make a decision to purchase new products, we weigh the benefits of the product against perceived limitations of its use.
F22:
A Spanish/English translator is always available in the libraries, and approximately one-third of the book collection is in Spanish.
F23:
Once a book has been requested by patrons at least five times, that book will be purchased or leased for the library collection.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
More standing book orders could increase purchasing efficiency. The library could form teen and senior advisory boards for input on material purchases. Response from Watsonville Library Director: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Library staff has always relied on the use of standing orders to increase efficiency. As deemed appropriate and financially prudent, additional titles and series will be put on standing order. We are reviewing plans to implement both teen and adult advisory boards. We anticipate that these plans will be launched in the spring of 2009.
F24:
Interlibrary loan service (loans of books from libraries throughout the United States) is available and free to cardholders.
F25:
The children’s area provides several early-literacy learning stations with specialized computers for children up to eight years old.
F26:
For patrons needing assistance, walkers with baskets are available to use while in the Main Library.
F27:
The Literacy Center tutors approximately 70 individuals each week and offers regularly scheduled classes and discussion groups.
F28:
The CAWHC is not yet open to the public on a regular basis. Programs
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Staffing should be increased to accommodate regularly scheduled hours for public use of the CAWHC. Increased librarian hours devoted to local history would accelerate the development of the collection, as would the sponsorship of workshops to collect oral histories. Library staff should develop a website to publicize the purpose of the center and the facilities and equipment available. Response from Watsonville City Manager and Watsonville Library Director: WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. It is premature to state when this recommendation will be implemented, but it is the library’s intention to make the hiring of staff a top priority. Staff is working with the CAWHC community advisory committee on establishing a website which will be available in the spring of 2009.
F29:
Programs are offered in English and Spanish whenever possible. The programs include • Raising a Reader, an early childhood program that encourages parents and children to read together. • Outreach to the community, which includes school visits and participation in city- sponsored events. • Computer skills classes. • Summer reading program. • LibraryLink: volunteers bring books, news of community events, videos, and other library materials to homebound patrons. • Adult programs that include immigration issues, divorce and health directives.
F30:
The Homework Center in the Main Library closed February 29, 2008. Despite demand, there are no firm plans to reopen it. The Freedom branch, however, continues to operate a homework center.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Re-establishing and restaffing the Homework Center in the Main Library should be a high budget priority. Response from Watsonville City Manager and Watsonville Library Director: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. The library offers after-school help with homework assignments. Helping children find answers to questions by using the resources of the library with the help of a librarian is what we do. This is a part of the service we have always provided to the children of the community. The establishment of a specific area of the library with dedicated help with homework assignments is a fairly new addition to the service that we offer. At the present time, the financial resources formerly put into this program at the main library have been diverted to address other staffing needs of the new facility. We will continue to monitor the need for a Homework Center at the Main Library while we maintain the Freedom Homework Center. When funds become available, we will re-visit the re- establishment of the Homework Center at the Main Library.
F31:
The Freedom branch provides a large children’s area offering family-oriented programs. General
F32:
The seven-member Watsonville Public Library’s Board of Trustees is appointed by the City Council. The board meets monthly to oversee the administration of the libraries and make budget recommendations to the City Council and the City Manager. Specifically, the board has the power and duty to "contract with schools, county or other governmental agencies to render or receive library services or facilities" (City of Watsonville, Charter Section 910).
F33:
The Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) plans to cut library technician positions in the next academic year, which may cause elementary school libraries to close.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
The Library Board's effectiveness could be improved by taking a more active role in fulfilling its charter responsibilities. The board could consider ways to improve library service to schoolchildren who may be affected by impending closures of PVUSD elementary school libraries. Response from Watsonville Library Board: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The Watsonville Public Library has served the children and schools of the PVUSD for many years. Class visits, summer reading clubs, outreach for after-school homework centers and collaborations with First 5 of Santa Cruz County and the Santa Cruz City/County Library System have all been implemented and approved by the Library Board of Trustees over the years. Both the board and the library staff are aware of the obligation and honor of providing library service to the entire community – including school children – and we have done so as budget and staffing limitations allow. Grants and partnerships that provide services to pre-school children, services for those with disabilities, and Spanish language book collections have all been awarded to the Watsonville library due to the efforts of the library staff with the approval and encouragement of the Library Board of Trustees. The library board, library staff and the library director make suggestions regarding additional service to the community. All suggestions are taken seriously and reviewed and discussed by the library staff and the library board. When appropriate, the board’s directives along with staff recommendations are presented to the board for final approval before the changes are implemented. With the approval of the City Council, as stated in the City Charter (Section 910 f), agreements are then entered into with various educational and social entities. This was the procedure that was followed when the homework centers were established and our participation in the First 5 funded “Read to Me” program began. The possibility of the closure of the libraries in our local elementary schools has been of great concern to the library staff. The staff considered various ways in which we could help to provide additional service to the schools with our limited resources. Suggestions for increasing service to the schools would have been presented to the Library Board of Trustees as deemed necessary. Fortunately, the anticipated closure of the schools’ libraries has been avoided this year, but we are aware that we must continually pursue ways in which to enhance the link between the schools and the Watsonville Library. While we cannot replace the school libraries and their important role in the educational attainment of students, we can support and supplement their goals.
F34:
Due to budget and staffing constraints, the two libraries will no longer be open on Sundays.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
When financially feasible, both library branches should re-establish open hours on Sundays. Response from Watsonville Library Director: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. The library staff will continue to track the need for re-establishing open hours on Sundays at the Main library. The Freedom Branch has never been open on Sundays, but staff will continue to monitor the need there as well. It is clear that while opening both branches for more hours would be beneficial to some members of the public, the analysis of cost vs. use must weigh heavily as a deciding factor. At the moment, there are no funds available to implement this change. We will re-evaluate this recommendation by April of 2009.
F35:
Main Library hours are: 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday; Freedom has the same hours except it is open only from noon to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday.
F36:
Approximately 1,000 patrons visit the new library each day, which is a substantial increase over the number of visitors to the old library. Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F1:
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has lodged a complaint regarding hiring practices and the county’s whistleblower program with the Civil Service Commission. Provisional Hiring Practices
F2:
During calendar years 2006 and 2007, 62 provisional appointees were hired to permanent positions. These represented just over two percent of the 1,733 total County hires for that time period. (Despite making two requests, the Grand Jury was unable to obtain the number of total hires per department.)
F3:
Three departments – District Attorney, Health Services Agency (HSA) and Animal Services Authority – accounted for 38 -- or more than 60 percent -- of the provisional appointments hired to permanent positions by the County during 2006 and 2007. Thirteen of 27 departments hired no provisional appointments to permanent positions at all during the last two years. [See Bar Graph 1] Bar Graph 1. Provisional appointments hired to permanent positions (Calendar years 2006 - 2007, all County departments) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 - D is t H ric e t a A A lt n h tt i o m S H r e n a u r e l m v y S P ic a e a e n r r s v k P S i s c e A e e r g r s s S v e o i h n A c n e c e u n I y r s n t e i h f f l f D o o C r P e r m it o r p y o a r a o b P t r i n t a o u m e t n b io r e G l S i n n / c e e t J D W n r a C v e e i o l i r p o c a r u a e k C l n s r s & t o t m y u E T e n C m n r t l e y e t e a T r C r k s g r o u a e / u r n n E A e n s c r u l s p e y d / e o c A S i T l t r t i g o t o a e a r r x n r t i s A v c i s o C i u g c n l o r e t i u A l c le r u s a c l s t l t e A u o C s r u r a o s d l m o B i E t r o o m x a r t ' i R s r e s d s n e P i s c o o o C i o f n o o r S h n l d i u e l P d p r l s e S a r n u R v n p is e i p n o d o C g r e r s v o t D e u e C l n o p t l p e y a m r r A k tm e d o n m e f t n t i h n t e is t B ra o t a iv r e d O ffic e s
F4:
Provisionally appointed employees have a clear advantage over other candidates competing for permanent positions the provisionals temporarily occupy. For the last two calendar years, nearly two-thirds of all County provisional appointees were hired to permanent positions; for individual departments the success rate was as high as 100 percent. [See Bar Graph 2] Bar Graph 2. Provisional appointments successfully hired to permanent positions (Calendar years 2006 - 2007, County departments with provisional appointments only) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 - D istric H t e A a tt l o th r A n S n e e i y m rv a i H c l e S u s e m r A a v g i P n c e a e S n r s e c k A s y rv P u ic e th e r o s s o r D i n t S y e n h p e e a l r r if t I f m n C f e o o n r r m t o P n a r e t o i r o b n / a J t S P a io e u il n r b v l D i ic c e G e W p s e a o n r r e t k m r C s a e l o n & u t n E t C y m o C e u r le n g r t e y T k n r C / c e E y o a l u s S e u n T c e s r r t r e i a e v o r n i l n c / s s e T p A o a u r x d t a i C t t o i o o r l s n le c to r s Provisionals Hired to Probationary Provisionals Not Hired to Probationary
F5:
Santa Cruz County code charges the Civil Service Commission with the responsibility for the process of approving provisional appointments. This responsibility has been delegated to the Personnel Director. Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Civil Service Commission: PARTIALLY AGREES. Specifically, Santa Cruz County Code Section 3.28.050 provides for provisional appointments and Civil Service Rule 130 Section II states that “The Commission hereby delegates to the Personnel Director the authority to administer the County Civil Service system in accordance with County Code Chapter 3.04, these rules and order of the Commission.”
F6:
Unless there is an appeal, there is no formal oversight by the Civil Service Commission itself of a provisional appointment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Civil Service Commission should periodically review individual provisional appointments to ensure the system is not being abused. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Response from the Civil Service Commission: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The first provisional appointment report was initiated by the Commission and received at their July 2008 quarterly meeting. The Commission directed staff to provide provisional appointment reports at each quarterly meeting. The first report on provisional appointments was issued to the Commission at its July 17, 2008 quarterly meeting. The Commission will now receive these reports quarterly. Nepotism and Favoritism
F7:
Civil service rules provide for the creation of “eligible lists” of applicants’ names ranked by their examination scores (written, oral, or training and experience ratings). These lists can remain in effect for a maximum period of two years or be abolished before that term by the Personnel Director. Civil service rules can be interpreted to allow provisional appointments after the abolishment or expiration of one eligible list and before a new one is created, or even before any valid eligible list exists.
F8:
County management claims to be unaware of specific employee complaints regarding misuse of the provisional appointment process. Nepotism and Favoritism
F9:
Civil service rules prohibit the hiring of first or second degree relatives (spouses, parents, children, grandchildren, or siblings) by department heads. These same relatives may not be given positions as direct reports or be within supervisory line of authority. Department heads are also “discouraged” from appointing first or second degree relatives to volunteer assignments within their departments. However, first or second degree relatives may be hired by different department heads, or may work together within the same department as long as one does not supervise the other.
F10:
This Grand Jury was unable to confirm any violations of County nepotism policy. Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Civil Service Commission: AGREES. The Commission accepts the statement that the Grand Jury was unable to confirm any violations of the County nepotism policy.
F11:
This Grand Jury was unable to find County administration and personnel code or civil service rules defining or prohibiting “favoritism.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the Personnel Department to develop and maintain a record of all first and second degree relatives employed by the County and to provide a report on a regular basis to the Civil Service Commission. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The Personnel Department does not require disclosure or collect data regarding family relationships on job applications and does not require employees to routinely disclose changes in relationships during the course of their employment. The collection of such data could be considered a violation of State or Federal confidentiality protections or prohibitions against discrimination based upon marital, family or other protected status. The County’s nepotism policy prevents department heads from hiring their spouses, parents, children, grandchildren, brothers or sisters (first or second degree relatives) in paid positions within their own departments. Additionally, no person who is related to a manager may be appointed or assigned to a position which is in direct reporting relationship or within supervisory lines of authority to such a manager or supervisor. Family relationship data is necessary in hiring decisions related to department heads and other subordinate/supervisory relationships. However, the County’s current nepotism rules do not prohibit the hiring of first or second degree relatives who are unrelated to the department head and are not in the same chain of supervision as their first or second degree relatives.
F12:
Some County employees with hiring practices complaints are not comfortable meeting with the CAO, the Personnel Director, or their representatives, fearing retaliation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
County management and SEIU should meet regularly to review specific employee complaints concerning hiring practices. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The Personnel Department’s labor relations division meets on an on-going basis with SEIU regarding hiring practices and other matters. Civil Service Commission rules govern examinations and appointments in the hiring process and contain appeal procedures for employee complaints. The Personnel Department will, however, discuss this recommendation with SEIU in hopes of improving communication, especially in the context of verifiable employee complaints that may be outside the scope of standard appeal venues. Provisional Hiring Practices
R8:
The Board of Supervisors is encouraged to create a body independent of county government to serve as the first point of contact for all whistleblower complaints; from there they can be forwarded to the appropriate entity for investigation and resolution. Response from the County: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. The Auditor-Controller will review suggestions for modifying the Whistleblower Hotline and will make appropriate recommendations to the Board.
F13:
County code charges the Civil Service Commission with assuring that, whenever possible, merit employment principles are followed. Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Civil Service Commission: AGREES. County code section 2.46.080 provides that the Civil Service Commission assure that employees within the civil service system are selected, promoted, evaluated and retained within merit employment principles.
F14:
The Brown Act restricts the Civil Service Commission’s ability to guarantee confidentiality to employees complaining about the County’s hiring practices because all meetings among three or more commissioners must be public. To conform to the Brown Act and yet still provide a confidential forum for County employee complaints, the Civil Service Commission created an ad hoc committee in 2007 consisting of two commissioners to hear complaints from SEIU members. Whistleblower Program
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Civil Service Commission should permanently create a standing committee consisting of two commissioners to hear and investigate personnel and hiring practice complaints. Upon conclusion of each of its investigations, this committee should report its findings and recommendations to the full commission. Response from both the County and from the Civil Service Commission: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. In 2007 the Civil Service Commission created a temporary ad hoc committee, consisting of two commissioners, to hear complaints from SEIU members. The Brown Act (Government Code Section 54952), County Code (2.46.060), and Civil Service rules (Section 130 I. 1. A.) restrict the Civil Service Commission’s ability to create a standing committee and still maintain a confidential forum for county employee complaints. The meetings of a standing committee composed of less than a quorum of the commission would be subject to the notice, agenda, and public participation requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. It is not possible under the Brown Act to set up a permanent standing committee that could accomplish a confidential forum for complaints of County employees. Whistleblower Program
F15:
Santa Cruz County’s whistleblower program was established by the Auditor- Controller’s Office in early 2005, possibly stimulated by federal corporate governance legislation passed a few years earlier. The program continues to be administered by the Auditor-Controller’s Office today.
F16:
Complaints received by the whistleblower program can address any part of the county’s operation, not just personnel issues or hiring practices.
F17:
Code compliance complaints are referred to the Planning Department.
F18:
The program was contacted 32 times during calendar year 2007. Fifteen were determined to be outside the scope of the program and two were general questions and referred elsewhere. The remaining 15 were opened as whistleblower cases; 12 were closed during 2007 and three were still open at the end of the year.
F19:
Four whistleblower cases involved complaints of improper hiring practices. Two complaints were found to be without merit and closed while two others remained under investigation at the end of 2007. Response from the Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller: AGREES.
F20:
Employee complaints received by the whistleblower program are given to department heads for investigation and resolution; employees are not informed in advance about this policy. The Grand Jury received testimony that whistleblowers could be easily identified by coworkers or supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Effective immediately, all employees complaining to the whistleblower program should receive full disclosure regarding the details of the resolution process for their particular complaint. Specifically, they should be told if their complaint will be forwarded to a department head for action. Response from the County: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. Changes have been made to the information provided to employees who telephone the hotline and speak to a staff person. Changes are in the process of being made to the English and Spanish versions of the voicemail and website information. Changes will be implemented by November 30, 2008. Response from the Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller: HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE.
F21:
Department heads are given six months to report the results of their investigations to the Auditor-Controller’s Office. The CAO and Personnel Director may also be notified about the complaints. Response from the County: AGREES. Response from the Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller: AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Preliminary results of whistleblower investigations should be required within 60 days of the original complaint. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. This requirement is in effect for reports received after August 15, 2008. Response from the Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
F22:
Although with careful scrutiny the whistleblower program link can eventually be located, many people have difficulty finding it on the county’s website. Typing “whistleblower hotline” into the search box results in “no matches.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County website’s search function should be updated so that typing in the keyword “whistleblower” results in a path to the hotline information. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Response from the Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
Findings & Recommendations
30 findings
F1:
All potential candidates for the conservation camps are screened by the Directors’ Review Board (DRB), the Institutional Classification Committee (ICC), the Unit Classification Committee (UCC), and the Camp Classification Committee (CCC) and classified according to a points system. The inmate’s age, marital status, number of children, and number and type of conviction are all taken into account.
F2:
Most inmates placed at this and other conservation camps have more than 12 months to serve.
F3:
On the day of the Grand Jury’s visit, there were 106 inmates.
F4:
The average age of the inmates is 35.
F5:
Inmates are assigned to camps at least two counties away from the counties in which they were convicted.
F6:
For every one day served at the camp, inmates are credited an additional two days off their sentences.
F7:
All Camp 45 inmates have undergone extensive fire safety training prior to being placed in the facility. They are trained at the fire academy for one week and then serve for six weeks on a crew at a correctional center. In addition, they receive eight hours of training once a week at Camp 45. When at a fire site, the Camp’s crews work collaboratively with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
F8:
Each inmate assigned to fire fighting duty must be certified by Corrections staff as being physically fit.
F9:
Some prisoners who do not meet medical requirements are assigned to a fire camp because they have skills the camp needs, such as carpentry or cooking. They work as members of in-camp or kitchen crews. The in-camp crew maintains the grounds and buildings, does laundry, cleans the facilities, landscapes, and provides clerical services. The kitchen crew provides the meals for the other inmates. Since this is a working camp, the meals must be hearty and nutritious and meet the Title 15 guidelines of 2600 calories a day.
F10:
Random drug testing is performed on all inmates.
F11:
The maximum stay in the program is three-and-a-half years; however, inmates are rotated every two years to other camps.
F12:
As of the day of the Grand Jury’s visit, there were no escapes in 2007, but there were two escapes in 2006. Both escapes were Mexican nationals nearing the end of their sentences and facing deportation. Due to this risk, inmates with an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) hold are no longer permitted at the camp. Since that policy was established, the number of escapees and attempted escapes has decreased.
F13:
Inmates earn $1.45 per day for the work they perform, and $1.00 an hour when on a fire crew.
F14:
Unless there is a fire, crews work Monday through Friday from 8:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on maintenance and conservation projects.
F15:
All work performed by the crews is under contract with a local city or county agency.
F16:
There are always at least two work crews that are “hot,” meaning they are suited up and ready to respond to a fire within three minutes.
F17:
Inmates who violate the rules accumulate points, which result in disciplinary action. The number of points they receive depends on the type and frequency of the violation. For instance, if an inmate is caught with tobacco, he automatically receives four points. If caught with tobacco again, he receives another six points. And if caught with tobacco a third time, he is removed from camp. Any inmate caught out of bounds three times is also removed from the camp. The Facility and Security
F18:
The facility and grounds are beautifully maintained.
F19:
At least two correctional officers — one sergeant and one lieutenant — are on duty on any given day.
F20:
In the control room, staff can view all video surveillance monitors, control the inmate television, and monitor phone calls.
F21:
Alarms are set at night on the doors to all residential buildings.
F22:
Video surveillance operates 24 hours a day monitoring all access roads although not all access from the rear of the facility is clearly monitored. Surveillance data is saved for four days.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends additional security cameras at access points at the rear of the facility to increase security.
F23:
In order to make outside calls, inmates must first sign up on a phone list. They are allowed one call per day, and all calls are recorded. The staff monitor inmate phone calls on a random basis and are required to review at least three calls per shift.
F24:
Inmates may purchase personal items from the on-site canteen up to two times a month, with a monthly limit of $180 in purchases.
F25:
All inmates are counted at least every two hours to ensure no one is missing.
F26:
The facility is equipped with hobby, pool, and television rooms. Outdoor facilities include handball and basketball courts.
F27:
Visitors are allowed on Saturdays and Sundays. Staff must pre-approve all visitors, and inmates may have a maximum of eight approved visitors on file at one time.
F28:
Support programs are provided for the inmates by Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, with meetings twice a week. Religious services are available three days a week, and counseling is provided every other week. A facilitator assists inmates as they prepare for release. Inmates may also work for their General Equivalency Diploma (GED) via courses available by mail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends GED classes be made available on site for inmates.
F29:
Whenever there is a change of custody between Camp 45 and Cal Fire, it is performed with a careful process of photo ID verification.
F30:
The bus arrives every Tuesday to drop off new inmates and Wednesday to pick up any inmates leaving the camp. Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
27 findings
F1:
Blaine Street is designed for women inmates who have been screened as minimum security risks. Low risk medium security women may also be assigned to this facility.
F2:
In 2006, the average inmate population was 24, and in 2007 (through September 26, 2007) was 25. On the day of the initial visit, there were 27 inmates. Approximately 20 percent of the women are Hispanic; the majority are identified as “White.” The average age is 35.
F3:
On September 5, 2007, the California Corrections Standards Authority recommended that Blaine Street be reclassified from a Type III facility (minimum security only) to a Type II facility, which would allow some medium security women to be moved from the Main Jail, reducing overcrowding there. This reclassification was implemented on September 5, 2007.
F4:
Most women at Blaine Street are incarcerated for drug and alcohol offenses. Some are there for theft and embezzling offenses, usually related to drug and alcohol addiction. On September 26, 2007, Blaine Street inmates consisted of women convicted of 17 felonies and nine misdemeanors.
F5:
The average stay is about two months. The maximum is one year.
F6:
In 2006, only one violent incident was reported at Blaine Street. Gang affiliation has not been a problem in this facility and inmates do not require separation based on gang identity.
F7:
The California Corrections Standards Authority issued a very positive assessment in a report dated September 5, 2007, stating that Blaine Street “continues to be a well run and clean facility.”
F8:
The front door is locked to the outside but not from the inside. There is a security camera on the outside of the front door, but nothing prevents an inmate from walking away. In 2006, the superintendent reported six inmates had walked away; all were apprehended and returned to the Main Jail.
F9:
Telephones are available and can be used with a prepaid account.
F10:
The meals are fresh and well balanced. The food services manager at the Main Jail prepares the menu.
F11:
In a report dated July 10, 2007, the Environmental Health report indicated, “The homestyle hood in use is insufficient for use over the commercial range.” According to a phone call to the Supervising Correctional Officer on December 13, 2007, a commercial hood is being considered for future installation. Response from the County: AGREES. A commercial hood will be installed when funding becomes available
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department replace the hood over the range with a commercial hood.
F12:
The Blaine Street supervisor is present four days a week. Her time is split between Blaine Street and the Work Furlough program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department implement long-term staff assignments, giving preference to correctional officers who are bilingual in Spanish and English. Having a consistent staff, rather than a different corrections officer every few days, would better serve the inmates.
F13:
In addition to the supervisor, there is one corrections officer on duty who works a 12- hour shift. Corrections officers are rotated among all the county jail facilities, so several different officers are assigned to Blaine Street each week.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department implement long-term staff assignments, giving preference to correctional officers who are bilingual in Spanish and English. Having a consistent staff, rather than a different corrections officer every few days, would better serve the inmates.
F14:
Some staff members speak Spanish, but it is not required. If there is a language barrier, other inmates are asked to translate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department implement long-term staff assignments, giving preference to correctional officers who are bilingual in Spanish and English. Having a consistent staff, rather than a different corrections officer every few days, would better serve the inmates.
F15:
A Work Furlough program is available to inmates who meet program requirements. It allows them to leave the facility for a job, but they must return when their work hours are completed. The program will accommodate any work schedule the employer requires. Inmates are responsible for their own transportation, clothing and meals when they leave Blaine Street.
F16:
Each inmate is required to spend time working in the kitchen, doing laundry, or cleaning the facility.
F17:
Educational and support programs are offered. Each time one of the women attends a class, group meeting or other program, it is counted as a “unit.” In a typical month there are more than 500 units of attendance counted for all of the classes, groups and programs.
F18:
Computer training classes are offered to the inmates. The plan is to double the number of computers available from six to 12 and connect them to the Internet. Computers cannot be used by inmates without supervision.
F19:
In addition to computer training, other programs include: • The Santa Cruz City Adult School offers classes for a General Education Degree (GED), job skills and parenting. • The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency (HSA) offers classes on women’s health issues and provides Hepatitis C and HIV testing. • The Walnut Avenue Women’s Center offers a support group for domestic violence victims. • Pajaro Valley Prevention offers classes dealing with drug and alcohol abuse. The class meets four times a week for 90 minutes each session. Once a week, it is offered in Spanish. From July through September 2007, there were almost 400 units of attendance recorded in these classes. • Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) hold regular meetings at Blaine Street. • Volunteers teach a popular knitting and crocheting class; yarn and other supplies are donated. • Volunteer groups offer religious services. • Volunteers from Friends Outside bring books for the library and other resources for the inmates.
F20:
Inmates have access to transitional programs such as Gemma, which serves as a halfway house for women making the adjustment back to civilian life after incarceration.
F21:
The non-profit agency New Directions uses state funds to provide counseling and educational services to the children of incarcerated parents. This agency provides services to South County families of women at Blaine Street.
F22:
Inmates have free time, which they can spend on the patio or lounging in the building. A small room has exercise equipment, though it was not being used on the day of the Grand Jury visit.
F23:
Inmates are allowed to grow fresh vegetables for their meals in an onsite garden.
F24:
Inmates may schedule one visit a week on weekends from a pre-approved list of up to eight visitors. Visits can be held in the common room or outside on the patio.
F25:
The nurse from the Main Jail is available 24 hours a day and visits three times a week. There is no onsite medical supervision. Inmates can be transported to public medical facilities in an emergency. Recent policy changes allow for dispensing methadone and other medications.
F26:
Twelve inmates are randomly drug tested each month. Additionally, if women show signs of behavior that could be drug induced, they are transferred back to the Main Jail.
F27:
There is no automated external defibrillator (AED) at Blaine Street although one was recommended by the previous Grand Jury. Response from the County: AGREES. An AED has not yet been implemented due to funding restraints, but it is anticipated that an AED will be installed during FY 2008-09. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Sheriff’s Department install an automated external defibrillator (AED) at Blaine Street, as recommended in the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury Report.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
28 findings
F1:
Correctional officers and civilian workers at Rountree Detention Center appear to be respectful of inmate rights, experienced in dealing with inmates, and well trained in security procedures.
F2:
Inmate visits in both facilities are well managed and beneficial to both the inmates and their families.
F3:
The maintenance and cleanliness of all areas of both facilities is good.
F4:
There are a commendable variety of constructive activities and skill building classes for inmates although few are conducted by Spanish-speaking teachers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Office of Education provide additional Spanish-speaking teachers or teacher’s aides for the skill-building classes. Response from Santa Cruz County Office of Education: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
F5:
Because the Rountree jail inmate populations are consistently under capacity, the facilities could be better utilized to relieve the overcrowding at the Main Jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff’s Office develop new strategies to house more of the County’s Main Jail population at the Rountree facilities.
F6:
The staffing of the facilities is inadequate to properly oversee, protect, and transport the inmate population.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
It is recommended that the Sheriff’s Office and the Board of Supervisors locate funding for additional correctional officers, at least one per shift per facility, to assure the safety of staff and inmates. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. The current staffing meets State requirements for all shifts and are operated so as to assure the safety of staff and inmates. As noted in the Grand Jury report, both facilities operate an average of 20 to 40 percent below rated capacity.
F7:
Onsite medical care is currently available 40 hours a week. The newly approved nursing weekend hours are needed to assure that medical problems are properly assessed and expeditiously treated. This weekend coverage will allow qualified inmates who need mental health maintenance medications to be transferred from the Main Jail to Rountree.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
It is recommended that the Sheriff’s Office finish recruiting for the weekend nursing position.
F8:
The video surveillance system has been noted to be inadequate in earlier Grand Jury reports, but it has still not been improved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Sheriff’s Office provide a recording of all surveillance camera activity.
F9:
Installation of fencing around the facility would prohibit the public from entering the facility without permission and would deter contraband from entering the facility.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends GSD go out to bid for the fencing project as soon as possible. Response from the County: HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. The fencing project will be going to bid On October 7, 2008.
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriffs Department and the Board of Supervisors secure the necessary funds to install fencing around the remaining perimeter of both facilities. Response from the County: WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. The recommendation will be implemented in FY ’08-09.
F10:
The Grand Jury agrees with the Environmental Health Report that the shower posts, flooring and support walls at the Jail Farm are in need of repair and replacement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends GSD put the shower repair project out to bid as soon as possible. Response from the County: HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED, BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE. Funds are currently allocated for additional plumbing upgrades, however, the fencing project is the priority project and may need additional funds that would supersede the plumbing/shower issues at this time. The Sheriff’s office will prioritize site needs within the existing allocation after bids are received on the fencing project.
F11:
Educational programs are offered in both the medium and minimum security facilities. The Watsonville/Aptos Adult Education program offers preparatory classes for the General Education Diploma (GED) and Adult Basic Education. Parent Education and substance abuse classes are also offered. A number of programs are provided by volunteer organizations, including Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous and church services. Response from the County Office of Education: PARTIALLY AGREES.
F12:
A medical unit serves both facilities. It includes private examination rooms and seems well equipped and well maintained. An experienced registered nurse is on duty eight hours a day, five days a week. If a problem arises, the staff can call the Main Jail medical staff. If necessary, the inmate will be transported to a nearby medical facility. The Sheriff’s Department recently received additional funding to add nursing hours on the weekend. They are currently recruiting for this position.
F13:
In keeping with the requirements of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 1216 Management of Pharmaceuticals, inmates prescribed certain mental health medications cannot be housed at Rountree because of the lack of medical personnel to dispense doses on weekends. The recent approval of weekend nursing hours will allow for medication to be dispensed seven days per week.
F14:
There is one automated external defibrillator (AED) in each facility. All correctional officers are trained in first aid, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and AED use as a part of their initial training. They also attend a refresher course annually.
F15:
All visitors must be approved in advance. Only six people per inmate, including children, are on an inmate’s approved visitor list during any 90-day period. Every 90 days, the inmates may submit new visitor lists for approval.
F16:
Telephones are available to all inmates. They can use prepaid phone cards to make a call. They can also make collect calls as long as the party being called has posted a deposit with the phone service provider.
F17:
The Environmental Health Report dated July 10, 2007 indicated the plumbing and condition of the floors, coving, and lower walls of the showers “are deteriorated” in the minimu0m security facility. The Grand Jury members noted these conditions on their visit. Response from the County: AGREES. Medium Security Findings 18. The medium security facility is designed with two direct-supervision housing units. Half the facility was opened in May of 1996, and the other half was opened in February 1999. The rated capacity is 96 inmates and the maximum capacity is 110. On September 10, 2007, the population was 73; of those, 33 were classified as “White,” 37 as “Hispanic,” and three as “Black.” 19. There are five correctional officers on duty per 12-hour shift at the medium security facility, except between 11 pm and 7 am when there are four. The number of onsite officers may be fewer during any given shift when officers are needed to transport inmates. Such circumstances occur daily when inmates are transported to or from court in Watsonville or Santa Cruz, or when there is a need for offsite medical care. Response from Santa Cruz County Office of Education: PARTIALLY AGREES. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education provides occupational training classes to both medium and minimum security inmates as agreed upon by Rountree administration and the Regional Occupational Program. Classes offered vary, sometimes from year-to- year as they are available from Regional Occupational Program (ROP) and as requested by Rountree administration. Last year, two courses were no longer provided at the request of Rountree. The County Office of Education ROP provides occupational training programs only.
F20:
One officer is stationed in a secured area and controls all doors and gates. This area also has surveillance cameras monitoring inmate detention areas. No record is kept of the surveillance videos.
F21:
Medium security inmates attend classes located in the two classrooms behind the control room area of the facility. These classrooms hold about 20 inmates at a time. In addition to the educational programs previously mentioned and offered for both medium and minimum security inmates, the following classes are offered exclusively to medium security inmates: English as a Second Language (ESL) and domestic violence prevention classes.
F22:
Medium security inmates can be visited Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays, during one of the four hour-long periods between 8:30 am and 2:00 pm. Visits are via telephone through glass. Two adults or one adult with two juveniles are allowed to visit an inmate at a time. There are four cubicles available for the visits.
F23:
Contained within each unit is an exercise yard with equipment such as pull-up bars and a basketball hoop. Minimum Security Findings 24. The minimum security facility, often referred to as the “Jail Farm,” was first opened in 1970. The board rated capacity is 162 inmates with a maximum capacity of 250. The population on inspection day was 99. They were categorized as 60 “White,” 34 “Hispanic,” four “Black” and one “Other.” 25. There are three officers on duty during the day shift and two during the night shift. The shifts are 12 hours long. As with medium security, there may be fewer staff onsite when officers are needed to transport inmates from one place to another. Response from the County: AGREES.
F26:
There are surveillance cameras monitoring inmate detention areas. No video record is kept of the surveillance.
F27:
Visiting is allowed for minimum security inmates on Sundays from 12:45 pm to 2:45 pm. These are contact visits in a large fenced grassy area adjacent to the minimum facility. On rainy days, visits are held in the dining hall. All six approved visitors may visit each visiting day.
F28:
makes no distinction between Regional Occupational Program classes and Watsonville Adult Education classes. They are operated by two distinct entities. Watsonville Adult Education is a Pajaro Valley Unified School District function and the Regional Occupational Program is a County Office of Education function. ROP can offer only Career Technical Education courses under California Education Code. By law, ROP does not offer skill-building classes. All classes at Rountree, with the exception of Auto Body and Computer Applications are under the jurisdiction of Watsonville Adult Education. Of the two ROP instructors at the facility, the Auto Body instructor is a native Spanish- speaker. The Computer Applications instructor is semi-fluent in speaking and fully fluent in understanding Spanish. All ROP teachers are trained in Sheltered Instruction under the requirements of the State of California as part of their credential process. ROP does not employ teachers’ aides. ROP will, of course, make every effort to provide instruction in dual languages. 29. Minimum security inmates can walk away from the facility, and it happens about four times a year. Those who walk away are generally rearrested within 24 hours. They are then likely to be held at the Main Jail for the remainder of their sentences, and new charges can result. 30. Due to the lack of fencing around the facility, Rountree has had problems with unauthorized persons entering the grounds. This has enabled contraband to be dropped off in the parking lot area which can be picked up by inmates working in the area and brought into the facility. The Grand Jury has been informed the Sheriff’s office has secured $72,000 to install fencing around the front of the facility. The automatic gates into the facility would be controlled from the control room located in the medium security section of Rountree. The Sheriff’s Office is waiting for the General Services Department (GSD) to put this project out to bid. Response from the County: AGREES. 31. Exercise and recreational options are adequate and include basketball, weight lifting, horseshoes, volleyball, baseball, soccer and ping pong. 32. The County has provided $48,000 in funding to repair and replace the shower posts, flooring and support walls at the Jail Farm. This was reported to be a problem in the Environmental Health Report. Funding has been secured for this project. Rountree staff is still awaiting GSD to put the project out to bid. Conclusions 1. Correctional officers and civilian workers at Rountree Detention Center appear to be respectful of inmate rights, experienced in dealing with inmates, and well trained in security procedures. 2. Inmate visits in both facilities are well managed and beneficial to both the inmates and their families. 3. The maintenance and cleanliness of all areas of both facilities is good. 4. There are a commendable variety of constructive activities and skill building classes for inmates although few are conducted by Spanish-speaking teachers. 5. Because the Rountree jail inmate populations are consistently under capacity, the facilities could be better utilized to relieve the overcrowding at the Main Jail. 6. The staffing of the facilities is inadequate to properly oversee, protect, and transport the inmate population. 7. Onsite medical care is currently available 40 hours a week. The newly approved nursing weekend hours are needed to assure that medical problems are properly assessed and expeditiously treated. This weekend coverage will allow qualified inmates who need mental health maintenance medications to be transferred from the Main Jail to Rountree. 8. The video surveillance system has been noted to be inadequate in earlier Grand Jury reports, but it has still not been improved. 9. Installation of fencing around the facility would prohibit the public from entering the facility without permission and would deter contraband from entering the facility. 10. The Grand Jury agrees with the Environmental Health Report that the shower posts, flooring and support walls at the Jail Farm are in need of repair and replacement.
F29:
Minimum security inmates can walk away from the facility, and it happens about four times a year. Those who walk away are generally rearrested within 24 hours. They are then likely to be held at the Main Jail for the remainder of their sentences, and new charges can result.
F30:
Due to the lack of fencing around the facility, Rountree has had problems with unauthorized persons entering the grounds. This has enabled contraband to be dropped off in the parking lot area which can be picked up by inmates working in the area and brought into the facility. The Grand Jury has been informed the Sheriff’s office has secured $72,000 to install fencing around the front of the facility. The automatic gates into the facility would be controlled from the control room located in the medium security section of Rountree. The Sheriff’s Office is waiting for the General Services Department (GSD) to put this project out to bid. Response from the County: AGREES.
F31:
Exercise and recreational options are adequate and include basketball, weight lifting, horseshoes, volleyball, baseball, soccer and ping pong.
F32:
The County has provided $48,000 in funding to repair and replace the shower posts, flooring and support walls at the Jail Farm. This was reported to be a problem in the Environmental Health Report. Funding has been secured for this project. Rountree staff is still awaiting GSD to put the project out to bid. Conclusions 1. Correctional officers and civilian workers at Rountree Detention Center appear to be respectful of inmate rights, experienced in dealing with inmates, and well trained in security procedures.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
The Planning Department currently uses two parallel data systems: • ALUS (Automated Land Use System), an older system, is used by the entire Planning Department and also the Assessor’s Office • The Hansen Information Technologies Permit Tracking System (HANSEN®), a newer system, has been in development since its purchase by the county more than five years ago and currently used only by the code compliance group. All new code violation complaints have been entered into the HANSEN® system since the middle of 2007.
F2:
County code violations do not always result in enforcement action. • The Planning Department documents some violations but does not enforce them, for example, violations of residential property fence height limits. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. In certain, limited situations such as side or rear yard fences that are slightly over the maximum height, no enforcement action is taken due to workload/caseload issues. Enforcement action for other minor violations may be limited to the issuance of a Notice of Violation (Red-tag) and recordation of the Notice of Violation on the property title. The Notice of Violation must be addressed when the property is sold or refinanced or when a permit is required for something else. • Some enforcement decisions are based upon Board of Supervisors’ policy, such as the 2002 board policy specifying that structures built pre-1980 without permit will not be subject to enforcement. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. This policy directive is followed, but pertains solely to non-habitable structures. • “No enforcement” is one complaint classification category in HANSEN®. Between March 29, 2007, and February 7, 2008, 11 percent of “no enforcement” decisions were based on policy adopted by the board; the remaining 89 percent were decided within the Planning Department without clear policy guidelines. Response from the County: DISAGREES. A portion of these “no enforcement” designations were open Service Requests (complaints) that had not yet been resolved. The Code Compliance staff initially selected “no enforcement” in the Hansen system for complaints that did not immediately result in the issuance of a Notice of Violation. It is common for a Code Compliance Investigator to conduct a site inspection and need to perform additional review of office records before determining whether, in fact, a violation exists. The remainder of the Service Requests referred to were actually resolved, with no further action, using the “no enforcement” designation. During the deliberations that ultimately led to adoption of the policy regarding structures built without permits prior to 1980, the Planning Department informed the Board that there is a category of violations that are so minor that no enforcement action on the part of the County is warranted. Planning Department management staff is involved in the decision-making process for each of the Service Requests that result in resolution using the “no enforcement action” coding. Examples of these determinations include side or rear yard fences that are a few inches over height, or a minor setback encroachment of a deck that would not otherwise require a Building Permit.
F3:
There is no formal policy requiring county building inspectors or code compliance investigators to report code violations they might chance upon. • The City of Watsonville requires home maintenance compliance, and its inspectors report violations they happen to see. • The City of Santa Cruz expects its staff to report obvious violations it encounters as a matter of policy. Response from the County: DISAGREES. The Planning Department Procedures Manual contains a Section related to the reporting of code violations by staff. That procedure, established in 2006, requires that certain types of violations be reported to the Code Compliance Section if encountered by any departmental employee during the course of their work. These include obvious and serious health and/or safety violations, significant environmental violations, and construction in-progress. The procedure contains specific definitions to provide further guidance to staff related to filing a code compliance complaint.
F4:
After a party files a complaint and receives an initial acknowledgement letter, the complainant is responsible for future contact with the Planning Department to determine the status of the violation.
F5:
It appears to be technically feasible to access the public information contained in the code violation database and INCOMING COMPLAINTS (by type) there is a plan to implement public online access before 50.0% the end of 2009. Currently, members of the public 40.0% wishing to learn the status of a code violation must telephone or visit the 30.0% Planning Department. Response from the County: 20.0% AGREES.
F6:
The code compliance staff 10.0% fields roughly 750 incoming complaints annually. About 0.0% 300 of the complaints require BUILDING ZONING VIOLATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL REFERRALS VIOLATIONS VIOLATIONS continuing extensive investigation and action. These represent approximately 40 percent of the total; the other 60 percent are either found to be invalid or are referred to another agency for appropriate action.
F7:
Each of the four full-time and one half-time code compliance investigators averages 66 new complaint investigations per year (not including those classified as “no violation,” “no enforcement action,” or “referred to other agency”), or fewer than two each week.
F8:
The code compliance group has positions for one typist/clerk, one planning technician, five code compliance investigators, and a principal planner. Additional assistance may also be provided by county financial and legal staff.
F9:
Earlier this year one investigator worked half time assisting the Planning Department’s understaffed fiscal section.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Department should • remove responsibilities other than code enforcement from existing code compliance staff. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The temporary reassignment of one of our Code Investigators to assist in the training of a new fiscal person was the result of unprecedented turnover in our fiscal division and the need to train incoming accounting personnel to support the Code program. This training has been completed and the individual has returned full time to Code Investigations. In addition, all of the Planning Technicians in the Department, including the two staff presently assigned to our Code Program, assist in staffing the General Information Desk that is an integral part of our public counter operation. This time commitment ranges from 2-10 hours a week. While this assignment does divert a few hours away from the Code Program, it also ensures that Code staff are kept aware of all of the ongoing changes at our building and zoning counters, and also places them in a position to suggest operational changes that improve the interactions between code staff, counter staff, and property owners trying to resolve their violation(s). This arrangement will remain in place for the foreseeable future. • recruit and train volunteers to assist the code compliance group. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. With the reassignment of an additional Planning Technician to the Code Compliance Section, sufficient staff resources are in place to assist the existing Investigators with caseload management. Two Planning Technicians assist the Investigators with in-office research and preparation of draft stipulated agreements and case hearing packets. It would not be appropriate to use volunteers to act as Code Investigators due to the technical training and expertise that is required to perform the job. • consider expanding the compliance-by-mail program to include additional low- priority violations. Response from the County: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. The compliance-by-mail program is used for violations that do not require issuance of a permit or a field investigation to verify the existence of a violation. In addition, correction of the violation must be able to be verified by the complainant. Initially, the Program was limited to illegal occupation of trailers and RV’s. In the last year, it was expanded to include certain animal keeping violations. We are currently evaluating whether this approach to code enforcement can be further expanded and will implement this expansion, if deemed appropriate, no later that the end of the 2008 calendar year. • create a list of code violations not currently being enforced and determine if any of the most commonly received complaints represent violations that can be added to the list. Response from the County: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. Certain minor code violations may not warrant enforcement action. Quite often, factors specific to the particular situation are taken into account when making a determination as to whether or not enforcement action will be taken. The Department will evaluate the range of minor violations that it encounters to determine whether, regardless of other factors, any of them qualify for such treatment. This evaluation will be completed in early
F10:
One additional investigator position has been funded but will not be filled during 2008; funding for this position for 2009 is not guaranteed.
F11:
Staff responsible for data entry works part time performing Planning Department receptionist duties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Planning Department should • remove responsibilities other than code enforcement from existing code compliance staff. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The temporary reassignment of one of our Code Investigators to assist in the training of a new fiscal person was the result of unprecedented turnover in our fiscal division and the need to train incoming accounting personnel to support the Code program. This training has been completed and the individual has returned full time to Code Investigations. In addition, all of the Planning Technicians in the Department, including the two staff presently assigned to our Code Program, assist in staffing the General Information Desk that is an integral part of our public counter operation. This time commitment ranges from 2-10 hours a week. While this assignment does divert a few hours away from the Code Program, it also ensures that Code staff are kept aware of all of the ongoing changes at our building and zoning counters, and also places them in a position to suggest operational changes that improve the interactions between code staff, counter staff, and property owners trying to resolve their violation(s). This arrangement will remain in place for the foreseeable future. • recruit and train volunteers to assist the code compliance group. Response from the County: WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. With the reassignment of an additional Planning Technician to the Code Compliance Section, sufficient staff resources are in place to assist the existing Investigators with caseload management. Two Planning Technicians assist the Investigators with in-office research and preparation of draft stipulated agreements and case hearing packets. It would not be appropriate to use volunteers to act as Code Investigators due to the technical training and expertise that is required to perform the job. • consider expanding the compliance-by-mail program to include additional low- priority violations. Response from the County: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. The compliance-by-mail program is used for violations that do not require issuance of a permit or a field investigation to verify the existence of a violation. In addition, correction of the violation must be able to be verified by the complainant. Initially, the Program was limited to illegal occupation of trailers and RV’s. In the last year, it was expanded to include certain animal keeping violations. We are currently evaluating whether this approach to code enforcement can be further expanded and will implement this expansion, if deemed appropriate, no later that the end of the 2008 calendar year. • create a list of code violations not currently being enforced and determine if any of the most commonly received complaints represent violations that can be added to the list. Response from the County: REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS. Certain minor code violations may not warrant enforcement action. Quite often, factors specific to the particular situation are taken into account when making a determination as to whether or not enforcement action will be taken. The Department will evaluate the range of minor violations that it encounters to determine whether, regardless of other factors, any of them qualify for such treatment. This evaluation will be completed in early
F12:
To help reduce the overall workload, follow-up with complainants is generally limited to a single written acknowledgment that the complaint has been received. Also the Planning Department does not take any enforcement action against some low-priority violations or investigate anonymous complaints. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. In addition to the written acknowledgment of the complaint, code enforcement staff frequently answer questions from complainants about the status of a case throughout the enforcement process. In addition, our Compliance-by-Mail Program requires the original complainant to verify that a violation has been in fact been resolved following receipt of a declaration from the property owner stating that the violation has been corrected. Planning staff makes contact with the complainant to verify resolution. Staff is also investigating whether it will be possible, within the Hansen system, to allow complainants to access the status of their code complaints on-line.
F13:
Compliance-by-mail form letters are sent to violators asking for voluntary cooperation in correcting some low-priority violations. Violators comply by returning a signed Declaration and Affidavit of Correction. Investigators may subsequently perform an inspection to confirm compliance. Violations currently handled this way include illegally inhabited mobile homes or campers, or people keeping too many cats or dogs. Compliance-by-mail was used in two percent of the complaints reviewed by the Grand Jury.
F14:
Despite two requests, the Grand Jury was not provided with precise data describing the size of the backlog of unresolved code compliance complaints or the rate at which this backlog is growing. One estimate provided was that for every 100 complaints entering the system 80 were being resolved, leaving 20 to accrue to the existing backlog. Based on this estimate and the annual number of complaints, the backlog of unresolved complaints would grow by about 150 a year. Response from the County: DISAGREES. We believe that the Department has now provided all information requested by the Grand Jury related to their investigation. There was an initial misunderstanding as to whether such a request was related to code compliance cases that reside in the older, ALUS system or in Hansen. Information on this topic of the backlog does exist for both systems and has since been provided to the Grand Jury. There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of unresolved cases since the beginning of 2008 due, in large part, to the audit of the department’s records related to the transition to the Hansen system. In addition, the department has implemented a systematic strategy for addressing the backlog and is confident that further reductions will occur.
F15:
There are many rules built into the current code violation resolution system that allow violators to delay complying with code requirements. Examples: • It may take six weeks or more to get on the calendar for a protest hearing. • Once the hearing is scheduled, the violator has the right to delay the hearing once. • During the hearing, a violator may request a continuance, which the judge will usually grant.
F16:
In 2003, the Planning Department committed to the Board of Supervisors to develop written procedures for using the HANSEN® system. The code compliance group has established process mileposts and created a detailed flow chart, but there is no employee procedures manual for handling complaints. Response from the County: DISAGREES. The Grand Jury was provided with a high level summary page that represents the milestone flow within the Code Violation case type. This summary page was excerpted from a detailed user’s manual that guides users through each milestone of a code case, from intake to completion. This manual, over 120 pages in length, was developed in July of 2007 and was distributed to each of the Code Compliance staff to assist them in their transition to using the Hansen system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
To create consistency among code compliance staff, Planning Department management should provide a detailed, written procedures manual, including targets for the amount of time allowed for each step in the complaint resolution process. Response from the County: HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
F17:
Except for a single summary report, the HANSEN® system was not generating data management reports as of March 1, 2008.
F18:
The Planning Department has requested at least 12 data management reports. As of April 11, 2008, only six of the reports originally requested the previous December were completed. Response from the County: PARTIALLY AGREES. Initially, the development of management and other system reports was a joint undertaking by the Planning Department and the County Information Services Department. However, after several months, it became clear that the development of these reports required a stronger technical background, and the Information Services Department took the lead in getting these reports into production. This resulted in some delays, but that has since changed. The Planning Department has been working closely with the Information Services Department on the development of numerous reports utilizing the information contained within the Hansen system. These reports fall into three categories: letters and forms generated by the system, information related to Service Requests, and information related to Cases. To date, seventeen of these reports have been developed and are in use. Of these, nine fall into the category of “data management reports.” The remaining reports will be completed by Fall of 2008. In addition to these programmed reports, a great deal of management information can be generated on- demand using Hansen’s search and reporting function that are built into the software.
F19:
The Planning Department has not asked for a routinely-generated report listing unresolved cases chronologically, with the oldest first. Response from the County: DISAGREES. It is true that the department does not get a listing of unresolved cases by the age of the case, because that is not how the caseload is managed: the oldest cases are not necessarily the most important. The department does track cases to ensure that appropriate actions are taken at the various stages of the enforcement process. The Planning Department receives reports for various milestones within the Hansen system to ensure that cases are moving forward according to their established business practices. The department receives reports listing unresolved Service Requests to ensure that new complaints do not remain open ended. The department has requested a report listing cases where a red tag has been issued and the Notice of Violation has not been recorded on the property title within 35 days of the mailing of that Notice. Similarly, the department has requested a notification report when 60 days have elapsed since recordation of the Notice of Violation and that, if the violation has not been corrected, a stipulation must be developed and sent to the property owner specifying required compliance periods and penalties. Finally, the department has requested a report indicating the current milestone of all cases and number of days spent in that milestone. The report will be able to be sorted in any number of ways, including chronologically.
F20:
The Grand Jury reviewed 100 consecutively numbered complaints (spanning entry dates between August 10 and September 27, 2007) and found the following: • Almost 30 percent of them were incorrectly coded. • Nearly 18 percent of the complaints had activity dates earlier than the entry date. These differences mean that work was performed on the complaints before their entry into the HANSEN® system. The largest discrepancy between entry date and the activity date was more than two months. • The Planning Department received more code violations than it resolved. After six months, unresolved complaints outnumbered resolved complaints by 50 percent.
F21:
In April and May of 2008, the Planning Department presented several code change proposals to the Board of Supervisors. Some were approved and others were tabled for further study and discussion. While major focus of the changes was on rules for building second units, among the approved changes were several that are intended to reduce the burden on code enforcement by eliminating requirements judged unnecessary. For example, the County now intends to • exclude most demolition from requiring Coastal Commission approval. • allow installation of solar energy systems in the coastal zone without a discretionary permit. Conclusions