Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2015-2016
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 (45)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The public has not received a clear, understandable accounting of the County of Santa Cruz’s total annual retirement costs and obligations in a single summary document.
F2:
The Mental Health Advisory Board is not meeting the requirements of the Mental Health Services Act or achieving its own goals to advocate for persons with mental illness and to increase community awareness on issues related to mental health.
F3:
The Board of Supervisors is providing little or no direction, no specific goals and objectives, and no comprehensive training on how to be an effective advisory board.
F4:
The apparent lapses of direct communication between the Advisory Board, HSA[Health Services Agency], and the Board of Supervisors impedes the Advisory Board’s goals of effective advocacy for clients and advising HSA concerning Prop 63 funded mental health programs.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The chair of the Mental Health Advisory Board should immediately notify the Board of Supervisors and the Clerk of the Board of vacancies. (F4)
R4:
HSA should regularly attend the Mental Health Advisory Board meetings and should respond directly to the concerns raised. (F4)
R5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board should quickly and clearly Published April 19, 2016 30 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury communicate to HSA all issues that come before the Board. (F4)
F5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board takes no responsibility for investigation or possible action on issues raised at their meetings, and there is no general process available for the public to raise concerns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Monthly meetings of the Mental Health Advisory Board should be conducted according to County Code Chapter 2.104. In addition, they should be scheduled well in advance with times and locations made available to the public, conducted according to parliamentary procedure, physically arranged to invite public participation, and recorded in complete and accurate minutes that include discussion, decisions, actions, and public comments. (F5, F7, F8)
F6:
Five vacancies on the 11- member Advisory Board left it ineffective for months during our investigation. 2013–2014 Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors should fill all Advisory Board vacancies in a timely manner. (F6) The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency (HSA) responded to that Grand Jury report, but the Mental Health Advisory Board (MHAB) did not. The California Welfare and Institutions Code § 5604.2[3] and Santa Cruz County Code Title 2, Chapter 2.104[4] provide for the establishment of a local mental health board as the advisory body to the local Mental Health Director and BOS for county mental health programs and policies. The following is a description of the MHAB on the County of Santa Cruz HSA website:[5] SCCMHB [Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board] provides advice to the governing body (Board of Supervisors) and the local mental health director. They provide oversight and monitoring of the local mental health system as well as advocate for persons with mental illness. A primary responsibility of the Local Mental Health Board (LMHB) is to review and evaluate the community’s mental health needs, services, facilities, and special problems. Printed on each MHAB Meeting Agenda[6] is a mission statement and list of goals: Mission Statement: To obtain the highest quality and most effective mental health services for the county. SCCMHB Goals: 1) Advise the Mental Health Department on Current and ongoing Issues as they relate to the Quality and Effectiveness Of Mental Health Services for the County 2) Develop skills and procedures to maximize the effectiveness of the SCCMHB 3) Increase community awareness on issues related to mental health to Ensure Inclusion and Dissemination of Accurate Information Scope The 2015–2016 Grand Jury inquired into whether the prior jury recommendations concerning the MHAB were implemented, and examined the board’s current functioning and effectiveness. Investigation We began our investigation by reviewing related documents and published literature, including text of the original Proposition 63 passed in 2004,[7] and subsequent amendments to the law now known as the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA).[8] The MHSA requires that mental health consumers and community members participate Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board Revisited 2015-2016 Final Report 31 in the local advisory board. In Santa Cruz County the BOS appoints eleven members, one of whom is a County Supervisor. The other ten members are to include current or former clients of mental health services, their relatives, and others with relevant knowledge and experience. Jurors observed four of the monthly public MHAB meetings held between August and December, 2015. During this period at least three of the ten appointed positions were vacant, which combined with member absences prevented a quorum. According to MHAB attendance records, the Supervisor did not attend four of the eleven meetings in 2015, and sent an assistant as a representative. Two of the eleven meetings had no attendance record in the 2014–2015 MHAB biennial report; see
F7:
The Mental Health Advisory Board receives a great deal of information from local mental health agencies and professionals on available programs and services, but there is no mechanism to circulate and share the information with the community and to keep local mental health professionals up to date.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Monthly meetings of the Mental Health Advisory Board should be conducted according to County Code Chapter 2.104. In addition, they should be scheduled well in advance with times and locations made available to the public, conducted according to parliamentary procedure, physically arranged to invite public participation, and recorded in complete and accurate minutes that include discussion, decisions, actions, and public comments. (F5, F7, F8)
R8:
The Mental Health Advisory Board should increase efforts to raise community awareness of mental health issues through public announcements, publications, speaking engagements, and other forms of community outreach. (F7)
F8:
The Grand Jury’s involvement has resulted in an increased recognition that an effective Mental Health Advisory Board is important to the community and that more positive steps are needed for continuing improvement.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Monthly meetings of the Mental Health Advisory Board should be conducted according to County Code Chapter 2.104. In addition, they should be scheduled well in advance with times and locations made available to the public, conducted according to parliamentary procedure, physically arranged to invite public participation, and recorded in complete and accurate minutes that include discussion, decisions, actions, and public comments. (F5, F7, F8)
R9:
The District should assume all responsibility for funding and managing teacher supply accounts and/or define a clear donation policy for contributions to teacher accounts. (F8) Published April 26, 2016 52 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrative Office to provide an annual summary of all retirement costs and obligations starting in FY 2016/17.
R2:
The annual summary of the total retirement costs and obligations should be identified in the county budget in clear and understandable language.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that the Board has violated the Brown Act on at least two occasions. These violations were due to the lack of open session discussion regarding the superintendent's contract and incomplete reporting of closed session decisions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board must follow the state law and their District policies by adopting practices that will inform the public of the details of their decisions and their decision process. As noted in the report the Brown act provides a baseline for public disclosure. Debating and giving reasoned explanations for their decisions in open meetings will improve public support and participation. (F1, F3, F4)
F2:
The Board chose to add the superintendent's expenses to his annual salary. While this is contrary to the spirit of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act adopted in 2012, the practice is commonplace for superintendents hired before 2013.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
If the Board chooses to grant the Superintendent a salary raise in excess of the percentage granted to District Bargaining Units, they should announce the amount together with the Superintendent’s annual performance goals and discuss the increase in a public meeting. (F2, F3)
F3:
There is history of poor communication and mistrust of the Board and District administration by the public they serve.
Related Recommendations (7)
R1:
The Board must follow the state law and their District policies by adopting practices that will inform the public of the details of their decisions and their decision process. As noted in the report the Brown act provides a baseline for public disclosure. Debating and giving reasoned explanations for their decisions in open meetings will improve public support and participation. (F1, F3, F4)
R2:
If the Board chooses to grant the Superintendent a salary raise in excess of the percentage granted to District Bargaining Units, they should announce the amount together with the Superintendent’s annual performance goals and discuss the increase in a public meeting. (F2, F3)
R4:
Soquel Union Elementary School District should make available on their website an easily filed complaint form with guidelines. (F3, F4)
R5:
The Board should include a summary of complaint topics received since their last meeting in the meeting minutes. All complaint topics should be summarized, including Williams Uniform Complaint Procedure, Uniform Complaint Process, Freedom Of Information Act, email, etc. (F3, F4)
R6:
The District administration should provide accounting reports to the HSCs in accordance with mutually agreed content and frequency. (F3, F6, F7)
R7:
The Board should include public recognition, recorded in meeting minutes, of all financial contributions from HSCs and other contributors of funds to the District. (F3, F6)
R8:
At the beginning of each school year and after consulting with the school principal, a proposed budget should be prepared by each HSC outlining the plans for donations in excess of $500. The plan should be submitted to the District for final approval. (F3, F6, F7)
F4:
The lack of an adequate, posted complaint procedure and problem resolution process contributes to the mistrust of the District and Board.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Board must follow the state law and their District policies by adopting practices that will inform the public of the details of their decisions and their decision process. As noted in the report the Brown act provides a baseline for public disclosure. Debating and giving reasoned explanations for their decisions in open meetings will improve public support and participation. (F1, F3, F4)
R4:
Soquel Union Elementary School District should make available on their website an easily filed complaint form with guidelines. (F3, F4)
R5:
The Board should include a summary of complaint topics received since their last meeting in the meeting minutes. All complaint topics should be summarized, including Williams Uniform Complaint Procedure, Uniform Complaint Process, Freedom Of Information Act, email, etc. (F3, F4)
F5:
The Board has failed to adequately develop and report performance standards for the superintendent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board should include in the Superintendent’s performance standard a goal of reaching an agreement between the District and the HSCs that specifies accounting report content and frequency. (F5, F7)
F6:
Although HSC contributions are a significant part of the discretionary budget for schools in the District, they are not well managed and they do not receive adequate public recognition. Soquel Union Elementary School Board – Full Disclosure is Not Optional 2015-2016 Final Report 51
Related Recommendations (3)
R6:
The District administration should provide accounting reports to the HSCs in accordance with mutually agreed content and frequency. (F3, F6, F7)
R7:
The Board should include public recognition, recorded in meeting minutes, of all financial contributions from HSCs and other contributors of funds to the District. (F3, F6)
R8:
At the beginning of each school year and after consulting with the school principal, a proposed budget should be prepared by each HSC outlining the plans for donations in excess of $500. The plan should be submitted to the District for final approval. (F3, F6, F7)
F7:
There is no policy in place to reconcile HSC donations with District expenditures. The proposed contract policy between the District and contributors of donations in excess of $500 is intended to address this issue.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The Board should include in the Superintendent’s performance standard a goal of reaching an agreement between the District and the HSCs that specifies accounting report content and frequency. (F5, F7)
R6:
The District administration should provide accounting reports to the HSCs in accordance with mutually agreed content and frequency. (F3, F6, F7)
R8:
At the beginning of each school year and after consulting with the school principal, a proposed budget should be prepared by each HSC outlining the plans for donations in excess of $500. The plan should be submitted to the District for final approval. (F3, F6, F7)
F8:
Because HSC contributions for teacher supplies are combined with contributions from other sources, accounting to individual donors for each teacher's expenses is impractical.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The District should assume all responsibility for funding and managing teacher supply accounts and/or define a clear donation policy for contributions to teacher accounts. (F8) Published April 26, 2016 52 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F9:
The Chemically Dependent Inmate Policy and the Sheriff’s Medical and Mental Health Care Procedure Manual lack guidance for when an inmate should be transferred to a hospital for a higher level of care or when an inmate should be placed on IV hydration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Clear guidelines need to be established in the Sheriff’s Medical and Mental Health Care Procedure Manual for when an inmate should be given a higher level care such as IV hydration or transfer to a hospital. (F9)
F10:
The Detoxification of Chemically Dependent Inmates, Federal Bureau of Prisons Clinical Practice Guidelines, February 2014, contains useful information related to recommended standards for the medical management of withdrawal from addictive substances.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Sheriff-Coroner should review Detoxification of Chemically Dependent Inmates, Federal Bureau of Prisons Clinical Practice Guidelines, February 2014, and revise applicable Sheriff's policies and procedures to meet or exceed federal guidelines. (F10) Published June 8, 2016 82 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F11:
The Sheriff’s Office at times refers to placing at-risk inmates in the infirmary, when in fact they are placed in the Observation Unit. The Observation Unit is not an infirmary. The Grand Jury finds this misnomer to be misleading to the public and endangering of the public trust. Another Death in Our Jail 2015-2016 Final Report 81
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Sheriff-Coroner should stop referring to the Observation Unit as an infirmary unless major steps are taken to improve the medical services provided in this unit. Continuing to refer to this group of observation cells as an infirmary is misleading to the public and does a disservice to the public trust. (F11) Commendation C1. In this entire unfortunate situation, there is but one bright spot. The Corrections Officers who watched over Krista DeLuca during her last hours carried out their duties with professionalism and compassion for their charge by making small but meaningful efforts to preserve her dignity during her last hours. The Corrections Officer who was working at the booking desk was concerned for Ms. DeLuca’s safety and kept her in booking so he could keep a closer watch on her. Corrections Officers in the Observation Unit made efforts to provide water and assistance while performing their required duties.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The public has not received a clear, understandable accounting of the County of Santa Cruz’s total annual retirement costs and obligations in a single summary document.
F2:
The Mental Health Advisory Board is not meeting the requirements of the Mental Health Services Act or achieving its own goals to advocate for persons with mental illness and to increase community awareness on issues related to mental health.
F3:
The Board of Supervisors is providing little or no direction, no specific goals and objectives, and no comprehensive training on how to be an effective advisory board.
F4:
The apparent lapses of direct communication between the Advisory Board, HSA[Health Services Agency], and the Board of Supervisors impedes the Advisory Board’s goals of effective advocacy for clients and advising HSA concerning Prop 63 funded mental health programs.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The chair of the Mental Health Advisory Board should immediately notify the Board of Supervisors and the Clerk of the Board of vacancies. (F4)
R4:
HSA should regularly attend the Mental Health Advisory Board meetings and should respond directly to the concerns raised. (F4)
R5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board should quickly and clearly Published April 19, 2016 30 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury communicate to HSA all issues that come before the Board. (F4)
F5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board takes no responsibility for investigation or possible action on issues raised at their meetings, and there is no general process available for the public to raise concerns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Monthly meetings of the Mental Health Advisory Board should be conducted according to County Code Chapter 2.104. In addition, they should be scheduled well in advance with times and locations made available to the public, conducted according to parliamentary procedure, physically arranged to invite public participation, and recorded in complete and accurate minutes that include discussion, decisions, actions, and public comments. (F5, F7, F8)
F6:
Five vacancies on the 11- member Advisory Board left it ineffective for months during our investigation. 2013–2014 Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors should fill all Advisory Board vacancies in a timely manner. (F6) The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency (HSA) responded to that Grand Jury report, but the Mental Health Advisory Board (MHAB) did not. The California Welfare and Institutions Code § 5604.2[3] and Santa Cruz County Code Title 2, Chapter 2.104[4] provide for the establishment of a local mental health board as the advisory body to the local Mental Health Director and BOS for county mental health programs and policies. The following is a description of the MHAB on the County of Santa Cruz HSA website:[5] SCCMHB [Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board] provides advice to the governing body (Board of Supervisors) and the local mental health director. They provide oversight and monitoring of the local mental health system as well as advocate for persons with mental illness. A primary responsibility of the Local Mental Health Board (LMHB) is to review and evaluate the community’s mental health needs, services, facilities, and special problems. Printed on each MHAB Meeting Agenda[6] is a mission statement and list of goals: Mission Statement: To obtain the highest quality and most effective mental health services for the county. SCCMHB Goals: 1) Advise the Mental Health Department on Current and ongoing Issues as they relate to the Quality and Effectiveness Of Mental Health Services for the County 2) Develop skills and procedures to maximize the effectiveness of the SCCMHB 3) Increase community awareness on issues related to mental health to Ensure Inclusion and Dissemination of Accurate Information Scope The 2015–2016 Grand Jury inquired into whether the prior jury recommendations concerning the MHAB were implemented, and examined the board’s current functioning and effectiveness. Investigation We began our investigation by reviewing related documents and published literature, including text of the original Proposition 63 passed in 2004,[7] and subsequent amendments to the law now known as the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA).[8] The MHSA requires that mental health consumers and community members participate Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board Revisited 2015-2016 Final Report 31 in the local advisory board. In Santa Cruz County the BOS appoints eleven members, one of whom is a County Supervisor. The other ten members are to include current or former clients of mental health services, their relatives, and others with relevant knowledge and experience. Jurors observed four of the monthly public MHAB meetings held between August and December, 2015. During this period at least three of the ten appointed positions were vacant, which combined with member absences prevented a quorum. According to MHAB attendance records, the Supervisor did not attend four of the eleven meetings in 2015, and sent an assistant as a representative. Two of the eleven meetings had no attendance record in the 2014–2015 MHAB biennial report; see
F7:
The Mental Health Advisory Board receives a great deal of information from local mental health agencies and professionals on available programs and services, but there is no mechanism to circulate and share the information with the community and to keep local mental health professionals up to date.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Monthly meetings of the Mental Health Advisory Board should be conducted according to County Code Chapter 2.104. In addition, they should be scheduled well in advance with times and locations made available to the public, conducted according to parliamentary procedure, physically arranged to invite public participation, and recorded in complete and accurate minutes that include discussion, decisions, actions, and public comments. (F5, F7, F8)
R8:
The Mental Health Advisory Board should increase efforts to raise community awareness of mental health issues through public announcements, publications, speaking engagements, and other forms of community outreach. (F7)
F8:
The Grand Jury’s involvement has resulted in an increased recognition that an effective Mental Health Advisory Board is important to the community and that more positive steps are needed for continuing improvement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Monthly meetings of the Mental Health Advisory Board should be conducted according to County Code Chapter 2.104. In addition, they should be scheduled well in advance with times and locations made available to the public, conducted according to parliamentary procedure, physically arranged to invite public participation, and recorded in complete and accurate minutes that include discussion, decisions, actions, and public comments. (F5, F7, F8)
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrative Office to provide an annual summary of all retirement costs and obligations starting in FY 2016/17.
R2:
The annual summary of the total retirement costs and obligations should be identified in the county budget in clear and understandable language.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The District Attorney's Office does not currently provide an annual summary of the disposition of civil asset forfeitures.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office should include an annual summary of civil asset forfeitures on their website. (F1)
R2:
Such a report should include a chart similar to the table 2014 Civil Asset Forfeiture Process Summary above. (F1)
R6:
County Office of Education should require a yearly report from each district superintendent certifying the existence and annual update of each school’s safety plan. (F1)
F2:
The Sheriff and prosecuting authorities are following the letter and spirit of the law.
F3:
The District Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office are following strict accounting procedures in managing the process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County Office of Education should ensure that schools have sufficient and appropriate emergency supplies. (F3)
F4:
Property due to be returned was released in a timely and fair manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
All district and school staff members should know about the existence of the safety plan and should know the exact location of their printed safety plan. (F4) K-12 School Safety and Emergency Plan Audit 2015-2016 Final Report 65
F5:
Proper escrow procedures were followed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
All schools and district offices should have a printed copy of the school safety plan readily available. (F5)
F6:
There is no incentive to abuse the program to supplement salaries and benefits, since none of the retained funds are used for salaries or benefits in the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Sheriff-Coroner and Board of Supervisors should require in the contract that the medical services provider for detention facilities obtain and maintain accreditation from the California Medical Association-Institute for Medical Quality for adult detention facilities. (F6)
F7:
The Chemically Dependent Inmate Policy lacks objective measurement tools for assisting the medical staff with their clinical decision making and determination of when a patient requires a higher level of medical care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Sheriff-Coroner should require that the Chemically Dependent Inmate Policy include the use of objective measurements of opiate detoxification stages, such as the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS), to assist the medical staff in making more objective decisions regarding treatment. (F7)
F8:
The Chemically Dependent Inmate Policy does not include procedures and symptoms necessitating immediate transfer to a hospital or other medical facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Sheriff-Coroner should work with the medical services provider to revise the Chemically Dependent Inmate Policy to comply with California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 1213, regarding procedures and symptoms necessitating immediate transfer to a hospital or other medical facility. (F8)
F9:
The Chemically Dependent Inmate Policy and the Sheriff’s Medical and Mental Health Care Procedure Manual lack guidance for when an inmate should be transferred to a hospital for a higher level of care or when an inmate should be placed on IV hydration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Clear guidelines need to be established in the Sheriff’s Medical and Mental Health Care Procedure Manual for when an inmate should be given a higher level care such as IV hydration or transfer to a hospital. (F9)
F10:
The Detoxification of Chemically Dependent Inmates, Federal Bureau of Prisons Clinical Practice Guidelines, February 2014, contains useful information related to recommended standards for the medical management of withdrawal from addictive substances.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The Sheriff-Coroner should review Detoxification of Chemically Dependent Inmates, Federal Bureau of Prisons Clinical Practice Guidelines, February 2014, and revise applicable Sheriff's policies and procedures to meet or exceed federal guidelines. (F10) Published June 8, 2016 82 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
F11:
The Sheriff’s Office at times refers to placing at-risk inmates in the infirmary, when in fact they are placed in the Observation Unit. The Observation Unit is not an infirmary. The Grand Jury finds this misnomer to be misleading to the public and endangering of the public trust. Another Death in Our Jail 2015-2016 Final Report 81
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Sheriff-Coroner should stop referring to the Observation Unit as an infirmary unless major steps are taken to improve the medical services provided in this unit. Continuing to refer to this group of observation cells as an infirmary is misleading to the public and does a disservice to the public trust. (F11) Commendation C1. In this entire unfortunate situation, there is but one bright spot. The Corrections Officers who watched over Krista DeLuca during her last hours carried out their duties with professionalism and compassion for their charge by making small but meaningful efforts to preserve her dignity during her last hours. The Corrections Officer who was working at the booking desk was concerned for Ms. DeLuca’s safety and kept her in booking so he could keep a closer watch on her. Corrections Officers in the Observation Unit made efforts to provide water and assistance while performing their required duties.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that the Board has violated the Brown Act on at least two occasions. These violations were due to the lack of open session discussion regarding the superintendent's contract and incomplete reporting of closed session decisions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board must follow the state law and their District policies by adopting practices that will inform the public of the details of their decisions and their decision process. As noted in the report the Brown act provides a baseline for public disclosure. Debating and giving reasoned explanations for their decisions in open meetings will improve public support and participation. (F1, F3, F4)
F2:
The Board chose to add the superintendent's expenses to his annual salary. While this is contrary to the spirit of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act adopted in 2012, the practice is commonplace for superintendents hired before 2013.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
If the Board chooses to grant the Superintendent a salary raise in excess of the percentage granted to District Bargaining Units, they should announce the amount together with the Superintendent’s annual performance goals and discuss the increase in a public meeting. (F2, F3)
F3:
There is history of poor communication and mistrust of the Board and District administration by the public they serve.
Related Recommendations (7)
R1:
The Board must follow the state law and their District policies by adopting practices that will inform the public of the details of their decisions and their decision process. As noted in the report the Brown act provides a baseline for public disclosure. Debating and giving reasoned explanations for their decisions in open meetings will improve public support and participation. (F1, F3, F4)
R2:
If the Board chooses to grant the Superintendent a salary raise in excess of the percentage granted to District Bargaining Units, they should announce the amount together with the Superintendent’s annual performance goals and discuss the increase in a public meeting. (F2, F3)
R4:
Soquel Union Elementary School District should make available on their website an easily filed complaint form with guidelines. (F3, F4)
R5:
The Board should include a summary of complaint topics received since their last meeting in the meeting minutes. All complaint topics should be summarized, including Williams Uniform Complaint Procedure, Uniform Complaint Process, Freedom Of Information Act, email, etc. (F3, F4)
R6:
The District administration should provide accounting reports to the HSCs in accordance with mutually agreed content and frequency. (F3, F6, F7)
R7:
The Board should include public recognition, recorded in meeting minutes, of all financial contributions from HSCs and other contributors of funds to the District. (F3, F6)
R8:
At the beginning of each school year and after consulting with the school principal, a proposed budget should be prepared by each HSC outlining the plans for donations in excess of $500. The plan should be submitted to the District for final approval. (F3, F6, F7)
F4:
The lack of an adequate, posted complaint procedure and problem resolution process contributes to the mistrust of the District and Board.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Board must follow the state law and their District policies by adopting practices that will inform the public of the details of their decisions and their decision process. As noted in the report the Brown act provides a baseline for public disclosure. Debating and giving reasoned explanations for their decisions in open meetings will improve public support and participation. (F1, F3, F4)
R4:
Soquel Union Elementary School District should make available on their website an easily filed complaint form with guidelines. (F3, F4)
R5:
The Board should include a summary of complaint topics received since their last meeting in the meeting minutes. All complaint topics should be summarized, including Williams Uniform Complaint Procedure, Uniform Complaint Process, Freedom Of Information Act, email, etc. (F3, F4)
F5:
The Board has failed to adequately develop and report performance standards for the superintendent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board should include in the Superintendent’s performance standard a goal of reaching an agreement between the District and the HSCs that specifies accounting report content and frequency. (F5, F7)
F6:
Although HSC contributions are a significant part of the discretionary budget for schools in the District, they are not well managed and they do not receive adequate public recognition. Soquel Union Elementary School Board – Full Disclosure is Not Optional 2015-2016 Final Report 51
Related Recommendations (3)
R6:
The District administration should provide accounting reports to the HSCs in accordance with mutually agreed content and frequency. (F3, F6, F7)
R7:
The Board should include public recognition, recorded in meeting minutes, of all financial contributions from HSCs and other contributors of funds to the District. (F3, F6)
R8:
At the beginning of each school year and after consulting with the school principal, a proposed budget should be prepared by each HSC outlining the plans for donations in excess of $500. The plan should be submitted to the District for final approval. (F3, F6, F7)
F7:
There is no policy in place to reconcile HSC donations with District expenditures. The proposed contract policy between the District and contributors of donations in excess of $500 is intended to address this issue.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The Board should include in the Superintendent’s performance standard a goal of reaching an agreement between the District and the HSCs that specifies accounting report content and frequency. (F5, F7)
R6:
The District administration should provide accounting reports to the HSCs in accordance with mutually agreed content and frequency. (F3, F6, F7)
R8:
At the beginning of each school year and after consulting with the school principal, a proposed budget should be prepared by each HSC outlining the plans for donations in excess of $500. The plan should be submitted to the District for final approval. (F3, F6, F7)
F8:
Because HSC contributions for teacher supplies are combined with contributions from other sources, accounting to individual donors for each teacher's expenses is impractical.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The District should assume all responsibility for funding and managing teacher supply accounts and/or define a clear donation policy for contributions to teacher accounts. (F8) Published April 26, 2016 52 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Compostable organic waste, which makes up approximately one third of municipal solid waste, must be diverted in order to extend the life of Santa Cruz County landfills and meet state mandates, specifically AB 1826. X AGREE ___ PARTIALLY DISAGREE- explain disputed portion below __ DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The organic waste stream in Watsonville accounts for about 35 percent of the non-diverted waste that currently ends up in the landfill every year. Currently the City of Watsonville diverts approximately 2112 tons of organic material from the waste stream annually. These materials are primarily yard waste, plant and other woody materials which are currently diverted and used to create a mix of mulches and other soil amendment products for use by the public. Additional programs are needed to achieve substantial additional diversion of the organic materials still in the waste stream.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In order to comply with AB 1826 mandates, the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should join with Santa Cruz County to form a regional agency to develop a large-scale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County. ___HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED ___HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE -indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) ___WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: While a regional agency might offer certain efficiencies and economies of scale for an organics recycling system, considerations such as land availability, environmental justice, permitting requirements, available organics processing technology and local economics will likely dictate the approach any jurisdiction will use to meet AB 1826 mandates. A joint agency is one approach that might be taken, but there are others that could also be implemented. For example, the various agencies might develop a "Memorandum of Understanding," or MOU, laying out the basis for cooperation without developing an entirely new agency. Another approach might be to bring in a private compost operator and for each agency to sign a separate contract with that operator. The City of Watsonville is weighing a variety of factors in determining their approach to AB 1826. Staff from the County and local cities along with expert consultants will continue to evaluate these issues and develop recommendations for how best to proceed within six months. 005
F2:
Unless Santa Cruz County and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola, Scotts Valley and Watsonville invest politically and financially in large-scale organics recycling systems, they will be out of compliance with AB 1826 by the year 2020 or sooner. ___ AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE- explain disputed portion below __ DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Compliance with AB 1826 requires each jurisdiction to meet the mandates for organics recycling producers of organic waste within phased in-time frames as follows: businesses who generate more than 8 cubic yards (cy) or more per week must source separate food scraps and yard trimmings and arrange for recycling services for that organic waste in a specified manner by April 1, 2016. By January 1, 2017, businesses generating 4 cy or more per week of organics are also subject to the diversion requirement. The bill also requires a business that generates 4 cy or more of commercial solid waste per week, on and after January 1, 2019, to arrange for organic waste recycling services and, if the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CaiRecycle) makes a specified determination, would decrease that amount to 2 cubic yards, on or after January 1, 2020. Each jurisdiction, on and after January 1, 2016, is required to implement an organics recycling program to divert organics from the businesses subject to this act, The law does not require jurisdictions to develop large-scale organics recycling systems but rather to meet the needs of the producers who need organics recycling services. The size of any jurisdiction's facility will depend upon the size of the organics waste stream and the economics specific to managing that waste stream.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The current pilot program for composting food waste from 1 restaurants and other large institutions in Capitola and Santa Cruz County should be expanded to serve other businesses in the AB 1826 first and second tiers throughout Santa Cruz County, including Scotts Valley and Watsonville, until a regional facility can be developed. ___ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED __ HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE- indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The City of Watsonville is conducting an analysis all potential options. Participation in the County food waste program will be considered, however, there are significant regulatory issues that would need to be resolved in order to resume and expand organics processing at the Buena Vista Landfill. Of critical importance to the City will be the costs and environmental impact of partnerships with the County of Santa Cruz and/or Monterey Regional Waste Management District.
F3:
Santa Cruz County and the cities of Capitola, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville all passed resolutions in 2005 recommending a regional composting facility, but as of 2015, no facility has been constructed, nor is there a completed plan to do so. __ AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below __ DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The City of Watsonville has participated since 2007 in the long-range planning process for a regional composting solution. Participants in this discussion have included all of the cities in Santa Cruz County, as well as the Monterey Regional Waste Management District. More recently Santa Cruz County and the cities of Scotts Valley, Capitola, Watsonville and Santa Cruz have engaged in cooperative conversations and planning for a regional organics facility through the Integrated Waste Management Task Force (IWMTF). In concept, collaborative resource recovery programs that should be mutually beneficial and more cost effective than if each agency were to develop its own facilities and programs. However, in recent years the IWMTF team has delved more deeply into the specifics of the organics waste stream for each jurisdiction, including the number of possible generators impacted by AB 1826, the potential tonnage of organic waste stream, waste stream and jurisdictional economics, land availability and permitting requirements. For some jurisdictions, participation in a regional facility may not make the most sense when the specific economic and waste stream factors are analyzed in-depth. Each jurisdiction in the County faces different challenges that will point to the most effective and efficient solutions that may or may not include one large regional. Watsonville, like the other local participating jurisdictions, faces both positive and negative factors in the organic planning process. The City’s relatively small waste stream makes it highly likely that the City will need to partner with another agency. The closure of the City’s landfill within the next five years poses a challenge and an opportunity for the development of an arrangement for both solid waste and organics management by a partner agency. The City’s proximity to the Buena Vista Landfill and relative proximity to the Monterey Regional Waste Management District facility offers two highly promising opportunities for partnering with a larger agency. These options are currently being evaluated on a parallel process alongside the Local Task Force regional organics processing study.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
After selection of a composting contractor and technology by the Local Task Force, Santa Cruz County and the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should create a coordinated outreach program to inform businesses and the public about the benefits and requirements of the new organics recycling program. __HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED __HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS -explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The above recommendation assumes that composting will be the final technology selected for the diversion of organics materials from the waste stream. Other organics recycling methodologies exist and are still being considered by the Integrated Waste Management Task Force and the local jurisdictions. In addition, the ongoing development of new State rules for composting operations, especially by the State Water Resources Control Board may delay or eliminate the use of composting as a feasible organics processing technology for many jurisdictions. However, no matter what technology or method is ultimately decided upon for organics recycling, outreach and educational efforts will be extensive and an important component to the program's success.
F5:
Unless the Monterey Regional Waste Management District decides to expand its current organic composting facility, Santa Cruz County jurisdictions cannot rely on it as a long-term solution for their organic waste recycling needs. __ AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE- explain disputed portion below _ DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The City of Watsonville is actively exploring all available options for both solid waste and organics processing. Options include partnerships with a regional organics processing operation, with Monterey Regional Waste Management District and/or with the County of Santa Cruz Buena Vista Landfill. Given the City’s relatively small waste and organics generation and the proximity to these large facilities with their potentially expanding organics processing operations, Watsonville stands to benefit from a carefully selected partnership or partnerships with its neighboring agencies. While Monterey Regional Waste Management District may or may not have capacity for the entire organic stream from Santa Cruz County, they may have capacity for the organic material generated in Watsonville.
F6:
Unless the cities of Watsonville and Scotts Valley develop organic waste recycling programs, neither city will be in compliance with AB 1826 by January 1, 2016. ___ AGREE ___ PARTIALLY DISAGREE- explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The City of Watsonville has 18 commercial solid waste customers that generate 8 or more cubic yards of material per week. These large commercial customers will fall under the 2016 organics diversion mandate. These large customers are generating mixed wood waste, green waste and small amount of solid waste. With the backing of the new mandate, the City is working directly with these customers to implement source separation of the wood and green waste from the non-recyclable garbage. The organic materials will be diverted to the City’s existing green waste program. This program involves collection of wood and green waste at a designated storage area at the City’s landfill. The incorporation of the organic material from the 18 large commercial customers into the existing wood and green waste diversion operation will ensure compliance with AB 1826 in 2016.
F7:
Rules about what can be put in the "green cart" are inconsistent and not well understood by the general public. ___ AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE- explain disputed portion below _ DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): All carts used in the City of Watsonville’s solid waste and recycling operation have custom, bilingual labels placed on the top and sides to inform our customers of proper use of each cart. In addition to information in English and Spanish, the labels provide the information in text and use of visual images. An effort is made to make the information accessible to youth and others with limited literacy abilities. In addition to the significant investment in cart labels, the City also has an extensive youth conservation education program that reaches about 3000 students each year with classroom presentations and field trips to the landfill, recycling center, wetlands, wastewater treatment and other water facilities. Located in Ramsay Park, the City’s Nature Center provides conservation outreach to 7000 visitors each year on topics including recycling, composting, litter and pollution prevention. Staff provides resources that support conservation behaviors at home and work. Nature Center staff also leads public tours of the local wetlands on the City’s seven-mile trail system.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
Curbside "green carts" and bins should be clearly labeled to instruct residential and commercial customers specifying what materials are acceptable. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED ___HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE- indicate timeframe below ___REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) __WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Since the beginning of curbside recycling in 1991, garbage and recycling carts have had bilingual labels that provide instructions using text and visual images. When green waste collection was added, the same style of effective labels were place on the lid of each cart. In addition, the Public Works and Utilities Customer Service phone lines are staffed by bilingual technicians during open hours who provide a wide range of information to callers. The City’s website, www.cityofwatsonville.org also provides extensive instructions for use of the City’s solid waste and recycling carts
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Compostable organic waste, which makes up approximately one third of municipal solid waste, must be diverted in order to extend the life of Santa Cruz County landfills and meet state mandates, specifically AB 1826. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below _ DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The organic waste stream in Santa Cruz County accounts for about 20-30 percent of the non-diverted waste that currently ends up in the landfill every year. Currently Santa Cruz County diverts approximately 37,394 tons of organic material from the waste stream annually. These materials are primarily yard waste, plant and other woody materials which are currently diverted and used to create a mix of mulches and other soil amendment products for use by the public. At present the County of Santa Cruz also diverts approximately 775 tons of food waste annually, primarily from restaurant and grocery store producers. Due to this program and with the inclusion of a few more large-scale producers, the County will meet its phase one AB 1826 January 1, 2016 deadline. In our efforts to get closer to our goal of zero waste, removing the remainder of the organic material from the current waste stream will be an important step.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In order to comply with AB 1826 mandates, the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should join with Santa Cruz County to form a regional agency to develop a large-scale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) ___ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: While a regional agency might offer certain efficiencies and economies of scale for an organics recycling system, considerations such as land availability, environmental justice, permitting requirements, available organics processing technology and local economics will likely dictate the approach any jurisdiction will use to meet AB 1826 mandates. A joint agency is one approach that might be taken, but there are others that could also be implemented. For example, the various agencies might develop a "Memorandum of Understanding," or MOU, laying out the basis for cooperation without developing an entirely new agency. Another approach might be to bring in a private compost operator and for each agency to sign a separate contract with that operator. Each agency will have to weigh a variety of factors in determining their approach to AB 1826 and each might decide to pursue independent solutions. Staff from the County and local cities along with expert consultants will continue to evaluate these issues and develop recommendations for how best to proceed within six months.
F2:
Unless Santa Cruz County and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola, Scotts Valley and Watsonville invest politically and financially in large-scale organics recycling systems, they will be out of compliance with AB 1826 by the year 2020 or sooner. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Compliance with AB 1826 requires each jurisdiction to meet specific mandates for organics recycling for large scale producers of organic waste within phased in-time frames as follows: businesses who generate more than 8 cubic yards (cy) or more per week must source separate food scraps and yard trimmings and arrange for recycling services for that organic waste in a specified manner by April 1, 2016. By January 1, 2017, businesses generating 4 cy or more per week of organics are also subject to the diversion requirement. The bill also requires a business that generates 4 cy or more of commercial solid waste per week, on and after January 1, 2019, to arrange for organic waste recycling services and, if the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) makes a specified determination, would decrease that amount to 2 cubic yards, on or after January 1, 2020. Each jurisdiction, on and after January 1, 2016, is required to implement an organics recycling program to divert organics from the businesses subject to this act, The law does not require jurisdictions to develop large-scale organics recycling systems but rather to meet the needs of the producers who need organics recycling services. The size of any jurisdiction's facility will depend upon the size of the organics waste stream and the economics specific to managing that waste stream.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The current pilot program for composting food waste from restaurants and other large institutions in Capitola and Santa Cruz County should be expanded to serve other businesses in the AB 1826 first and second tiers throughout Santa Cruz County, including Scotts Valley and Watsonville, until a regional facility can be developed. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED X HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) _ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The County is in active conversation with our franchise hauler, Greenwaste Recovery and other local commercial waste haulers to develop plans and implement the expansion of the organics collection program mandated by AB 1826. We have identified potential participants, and are working to develop collection routes and new rates for this service in the unincorporated County. It is anticipated that an expanded program will be in place by early 2016 in time to meet the April 2016 deadline for the first phase of AB 1826 to begin. Santa Cruz County does not have any authority to expand the service area to jurisdictions outside of the unincorporated County. In addition, organics recycling has been included in the current Request for Proposals for the new franchise hauler contract, which will begin in 2018.
F3:
Santa Cruz County and the cities of Capitola, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville all passed resolutions in 2005 recommending a regional composting facility, but as of 2015, no facility has been constructed, nor is there a completed plan to do so. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below <b>DISAGREE</b> - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Long-range planning for a regional composting facility has been in discussion since 2007. Participants in this discussion have included all of the cities in Santa Cruz County, as well as the Monterey Regional Waste Management District. More recently Santa Cruz County and the cities of Scotts Valley, Capitola, Watsonville and Santa Cruz have engaged in cooperative conversations and planning for a regional organics facility through the Integrated Waste Management Task Force (IWMTF). In concept, collaborative resource recovery programs that would be mutually beneficial and more cost effective than if each agency were to go it alone are extremely attractive. However, in recent years the IWMTF team has delved more deeply into the specifics of the organics waste stream for each jurisdiction, including the number of possible generators impacted by AB 1826, the potential tonnage of organic waste stream, waste stream and jurisdictional economics, land availability and permitting requirements. For some jurisdictions, participation in a regional facility may not make the most sense when the specific economic and waste stream factors are analyzed in-depth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
After selection of a composting contractor and technology by the Local Task Force, Santa Cruz County and the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should create a coordinated outreach program to inform businesses and the public about the benefits and requirements of the new organics recycling program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The above recommendation assumes that composting will be the final technology selected for the diversion of organics materials from the waste stream. Other organics recycling methodologies exist and are still being considered by the Integrated Waste Management Task Force and the local jurisdictions. In addition, the ongoing development of new state rules for composting operations, especially by the State Water Resources Control Board may delay or eliminate the use of composting as a feasible organics processing technology for many jurisdictions. However, no matter what technology or method is ultimately decided upon for organics recycling, outreach and educational efforts will be extensive and an important component to the program's success.
F4:
Rather than building a permanent local infrastructure for organics composting, Santa Cruz County and the city of Capitola opted to continue their commercial composting pilot programs by hauling food waste out of the county to the Monterey Bay Regional Waste Management District's composting facility, at considerable cost in time and fuel. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below <b>DISAGREE</b> - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The County of Santa Cruz instituted a pilot program in fiscal year 2004/05 for the collection of food scraps from a number of local commercial generators which was then composted within enclosed containers. This pilot program was an effort to 1) develop operational experience, including solutions to problems, on a small scale before expanding the program county-wide; 2) establish a core group of participating businesses that can assist with program outreach and serve as models for other food waste generators; and 3) develop estimates of program costs that will assist in determining the rate structure for a future county-wide program. The pilot program, at its peak, was comprised of 75 participating businesses which turned approximately 125 tons per month of food scraps turned into valuable compost. The pilot program was allowed to run until April 30, 2010. Projected site improvement costs necessary to meet State permitting requirements for a permanent facility were not feasible during the economic downturn and changing State laws made the composting technology in place for the pilot program problematic for a permanent facility. Rather than eliminate the program and return the diverted waste stream to the landfill, the County chose to continue diverting the food scraps through an agreement with the Monterey Regional Waste Management District, while continuing to work towards a permanent solution to the diversion of food scraps waste. This would insure that the core group of large food generators would continue best practices in organics diversion while new State laws and permitting procedures were developed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Curbside "green carts" and bins should be clearly labeled to instruct residential and commercial customers specifying what materials are acceptable. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED X HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: While existing residential green carts originally had labels indicating the material to be deposited, the labels may have disintegrated or may not account for all materials currently accepted in the green cart. With the beginning of the County's new waste hauling franchise in 2018, all residential carts will be replaced and will include current, informative labels on acceptable materials. Residents with curbside service can always access information on what should be placed in their specific carts (green/yardwaste, blue/recycling or grey/garbage) at: /www.greenwaste.com/santa-cruz-county/residential-services. Residents who self-haul and commercial customers can access recycling information for the unincorporated County at www.santacruzcountyrecycles/index.html 19 .00 12 * ... . . .
F5:
Unless the Monterey Regional Waste Management District decides to expand its current organic composting facility, Santa Cruz County jurisdictions cannot rely on it as a long-term solution for their organic waste recycling needs. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below <b>DISAGREE</b> - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"):
F7:
Rules about what can be put in the "green cart" are inconsistent and not well understood by the general public. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below <b>DISAGREE</b> - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The "green cart" is the collection container used only by residents in curbside collection of yardwaste materials. The rules for what can go in the green cart have been very consistent across the County and City jurisdictions for a number of years. Both the County and our franchise hauler, Greenwaste Recovery, send out regular reminders of what is accepted in each cart (see examples below). www.greenwaste.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/RecycleGuide SantaCruzCounty Residen tial July2011.pdf www.greenwaste.com/sites/default/files/2014 Spring wasteline SantaCruzCounty.pdf It is important to note that the majority of organics material is produced by commercial organizations, such as grocery stores, restaurants and hospitals. AB 1826 is focused only on commercial customers and would not impact residential service or what gets put in the green cart. However, the County of Santa Cruz, in its efforts to move towards zero waste, is examining the potential for residential customers to also participate in greater organics waste diversion through curb-side servicing.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The consolidation of Fire and Emergency Medical System dispatch services at the Santa Cruz Regional 911 center and mutual aid agreements between districts have created an efficient virtual single service district for those services in the entire county. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): "Partially agree" is not permitted, but the Board does partially agree with Finding No. 1. The consolidation of the Fire and Emergency Medical System dispatch services at the Santa Cruz Regional 911 center coupled with mutual aid/automatic aid agreement are major components that have created and efficient virtual single service fire district. However, as mentioned in the Report at , other factors such as continued cooperation amongst Santa Cruz Fire Chiefs via the formation of a Santa Cruz County Fire Chiefs Association and the County EMSIA have also contributed. In addition, there is a long history of California being the national leader in cooperative fire assistance agreements through guidance of FIRESCOPE and Cal OES are also additional components that have helped create a seamless single service delivery. Board vote 5-0 Partially Disagree (Finding 1)
F2:
Shared services between fire districts have improved response times, training, and services across the county. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below Х DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): While Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District agrees that shared service between the districts has improved services, we are not in agreement that this is "county wide". Aptos/La Selva will continue to support increasing shared services where it is financially sound and increases service to our constituents and Santa Cruz County as a whole. Board vote 5-0 Partially Disagree (Finding 2)
F3:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District did not take advantage of the opportunity to pursue consolidation when the Aptos Fire Chief retired in 2014. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The opportunity to consolidate or not consolidate fire districts is not dependent on one fire chief retiring. As mentioned in the Report at Pages 6-7, consolidation is a complex issue that must weigh current service efficiencies against future service efficiencies, financial and contractual obligations, not to mention the political differences of opinion such as local control, subsidized services, etc. Board vote 5-0 Disagree (Finding 3)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District should work together to merge and form a Mid-County Fire Protection District. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The structure of the recommendation limits our answer to a timeframe of six months. We continue to be open to explore opportunities that are of mutual benefit to all fire districts which may or may not include consolidation. Consolidation, in different forms, has been talked about in Santa Cruz County since the mid 1970's. Several Grand Jury reports and independent studies have addressed consolidation; however for a variety of reasons, consolidation has not occurred. Consolidation is a complex issue that requires political will, labor support and sound financial and contractual solutions. Aptos/La Selva will continue to endeavor to find increased areas of shared services. Board vote 5-0 Will not be implemented (Recommendation 1)
F4:
The differences in pay scales and benefits between Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District are issues that must be addressed prior to consolidation. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): As mentioned in the Report at Pages 6-7, consolidation is a complex issue that must weigh current service efficiencies against future service efficiencies, financial and contractual obligations, not to mention the political differences of opinion such as local control, subsidized services, etc. Board vote 5-0 Agree (Finding 4)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District should work together to merge and form a Mid-County Fire Protection District. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The structure of the recommendation limits our answer to a timeframe of six months. We continue to be open to explore opportunities that are of mutual benefit to all fire districts which may or may not include consolidation. Consolidation, in different forms, has been talked about in Santa Cruz County since the mid 1970's. Several Grand Jury reports and independent studies have addressed consolidation; however for a variety of reasons, consolidation has not occurred. Consolidation is a complex issue that requires political will, labor support and sound financial and contractual solutions. Aptos/La Selva will continue to endeavor to find increased areas of shared services. Board vote 5-0 Will not be implemented (Recommendation 1)
F5:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District have a common problem resulting from excessive and unreasonable Public Records Act requests. These requests have negatively impacted the daily administration, budgets and operations of the districts. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Board vote 5-0 Agree (Finding 5)
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District should create policies for receiving and responding to PRA requests. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) ___ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Board vote 5-0 Has been implemented (Recommendation 3)
F6:
The lack of enforced policies and procedures regarding conflicts of interest and board member interactions in district operations, has interfered with the ability of the Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District to consider further shared services or consolidation. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Prior to the issuance of the Grand Jury Report, Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District has adopted a Board Policy Manual that defines board member interactions and a code of conduct. Board vote 5-0 Partially Disagree (Finding 6)
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District should work together to merge and form a Mid-County Fire Protection District. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The structure of the recommendation limits our answer to a timeframe of six months. We continue to be open to explore opportunities that are of mutual benefit to all fire districts which may or may not include consolidation. Consolidation, in different forms, has been talked about in Santa Cruz County since the mid 1970's. Several Grand Jury reports and independent studies have addressed consolidation; however for a variety of reasons, consolidation has not occurred. Consolidation is a complex issue that requires political will, labor support and sound financial and contractual solutions. Aptos/La Selva will continue to endeavor to find increased areas of shared services. Board vote 5-0 Will not be implemented (Recommendation 1)
F7:
The joint Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District Cooperative Fire Prevention Program is successful and could benefit the county if made permanent. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): "Partially agree" is not permitted, but the Board does partially agree with Finding No. 7. The CPP appears that it could be a benefit to both districts. Board vote 5-0 Partially Disagree (Finding 7)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The governing bodies of Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District should adopt the three year plan for the Cooperative Fire Prevention Program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Mental Health Advisory Board had not followed the recommendations of the 2013–2014 Grand Jury report and instead was less communicative and less effective.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The appointed member of the Board of Supervisors should be an advocate for the Mental Health Advisory Board, meeting regularly with the Chair to establish goals, identify problem areas, suggest possible solutions, and should personally attend the monthly meetings. (F1–F3, F6)
F2:
The Mental Health Advisory Board is not meeting the requirements of the Mental Health Services Act or achieving its own goals to advocate for persons with mental illness and to increase community awareness on issues related to mental health.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The appointed member of the Board of Supervisors should be an advocate for the Mental Health Advisory Board, meeting regularly with the Chair to establish goals, identify problem areas, suggest possible solutions, and should personally attend the monthly meetings. (F1–F3, F6)
F3:
The Board of Supervisors is providing little or no direction, no specific goals and objectives, and no comprehensive training on how to be an effective advisory board.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The appointed member of the Board of Supervisors should be an advocate for the Mental Health Advisory Board, meeting regularly with the Chair to establish goals, identify problem areas, suggest possible solutions, and should personally attend the monthly meetings. (F1–F3, F6)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should make every effort to fill Mental Health Advisory Published April 19, 2016 34 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Board vacancies immediately, provide training for new appointees, and provide annual professional training for all members on how to serve effectively on an advisory board. (F3, F4)
F4:
The apparent lapses of direct communication between the Advisory Board, HSA[Health Services Agency], and the Board of Supervisors impedes the Advisory Board’s goals of effective advocacy for clients and advising HSA concerning Prop 63 funded mental health programs.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should make every effort to fill Mental Health Advisory Published April 19, 2016 34 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Board vacancies immediately, provide training for new appointees, and provide annual professional training for all members on how to serve effectively on an advisory board. (F3, F4)
R3:
The chair of the Mental Health Advisory Board should immediately notify the Board of Supervisors and the Clerk of the Board of vacancies. (F4)
R4:
HSA should regularly attend the Mental Health Advisory Board meetings and should respond directly to the concerns raised. (F4)
R5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board should quickly and clearly Published April 19, 2016 30 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury communicate to HSA all issues that come before the Board. (F4)
F5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board takes no responsibility for investigation or possible action on issues raised at their meetings, and there is no general process available for the public to raise concerns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Monthly meetings of the Mental Health Advisory Board should be conducted according to County Code Chapter 2.104. In addition, they should be scheduled well in advance with times and locations made available to the public, conducted according to parliamentary procedure, physically arranged to invite public participation, and recorded in complete and accurate minutes that include discussion, decisions, actions, and public comments. (F5, F7, F8)
F6:
Five vacancies on the 11- member Advisory Board left it ineffective for months during our investigation. 2013–2014 Recommendations
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The appointed member of the Board of Supervisors should be an advocate for the Mental Health Advisory Board, meeting regularly with the Chair to establish goals, identify problem areas, suggest possible solutions, and should personally attend the monthly meetings. (F1–F3, F6)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors should fill all Advisory Board vacancies in a timely manner. (F6) The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency (HSA) responded to that Grand Jury report, but the Mental Health Advisory Board (MHAB) did not. The California Welfare and Institutions Code § 5604.2[3] and Santa Cruz County Code Title 2, Chapter 2.104[4] provide for the establishment of a local mental health board as the advisory body to the local Mental Health Director and BOS for county mental health programs and policies. The following is a description of the MHAB on the County of Santa Cruz HSA website:[5] SCCMHB [Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board] provides advice to the governing body (Board of Supervisors) and the local mental health director. They provide oversight and monitoring of the local mental health system as well as advocate for persons with mental illness. A primary responsibility of the Local Mental Health Board (LMHB) is to review and evaluate the community’s mental health needs, services, facilities, and special problems. Printed on each MHAB Meeting Agenda[6] is a mission statement and list of goals: Mission Statement: To obtain the highest quality and most effective mental health services for the county. SCCMHB Goals: 1) Advise the Mental Health Department on Current and ongoing Issues as they relate to the Quality and Effectiveness Of Mental Health Services for the County 2) Develop skills and procedures to maximize the effectiveness of the SCCMHB 3) Increase community awareness on issues related to mental health to Ensure Inclusion and Dissemination of Accurate Information Scope The 2015–2016 Grand Jury inquired into whether the prior jury recommendations concerning the MHAB were implemented, and examined the board’s current functioning and effectiveness. Investigation We began our investigation by reviewing related documents and published literature, including text of the original Proposition 63 passed in 2004,[7] and subsequent amendments to the law now known as the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA).[8] The MHSA requires that mental health consumers and community members participate Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board Revisited 2015-2016 Final Report 31 in the local advisory board. In Santa Cruz County the BOS appoints eleven members, one of whom is a County Supervisor. The other ten members are to include current or former clients of mental health services, their relatives, and others with relevant knowledge and experience. Jurors observed four of the monthly public MHAB meetings held between August and December, 2015. During this period at least three of the ten appointed positions were vacant, which combined with member absences prevented a quorum. According to MHAB attendance records, the Supervisor did not attend four of the eleven meetings in 2015, and sent an assistant as a representative. Two of the eleven meetings had no attendance record in the 2014–2015 MHAB biennial report; see
F7:
The Mental Health Advisory Board receives a great deal of information from local mental health agencies and professionals on available programs and services, but there is no mechanism to circulate and share the information with the community and to keep local mental health professionals up to date.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Monthly meetings of the Mental Health Advisory Board should be conducted according to County Code Chapter 2.104. In addition, they should be scheduled well in advance with times and locations made available to the public, conducted according to parliamentary procedure, physically arranged to invite public participation, and recorded in complete and accurate minutes that include discussion, decisions, actions, and public comments. (F5, F7, F8)
R8:
The Mental Health Advisory Board should increase efforts to raise community awareness of mental health issues through public announcements, publications, speaking engagements, and other forms of community outreach. (F7)
F8:
The Grand Jury’s involvement has resulted in an increased recognition that an effective Mental Health Advisory Board is important to the community and that more positive steps are needed for continuing improvement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Monthly meetings of the Mental Health Advisory Board should be conducted according to County Code Chapter 2.104. In addition, they should be scheduled well in advance with times and locations made available to the public, conducted according to parliamentary procedure, physically arranged to invite public participation, and recorded in complete and accurate minutes that include discussion, decisions, actions, and public comments. (F5, F7, F8)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The consolidation of Fire and Emergency Medical System dispatch services at the Santa Cruz Regional 911 center and mutual aid agreements between districts have created an efficient virtual single service district for those services in the entire county. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
F2:
Shared services between fire districts have improved response times, training, and services across the county. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
F11:
The differences in policies and procedures of the four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley inhibit future consolidation. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
The four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley should further align their policies and procedures in anticipation of future consolidation. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The Boulder Creek Fire Protection District agrees with findings 1, 2 and 11 of the 20142015 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury report. Due to this fact Recommendation 7 will not be implemented by the Boulder Creek Fire Protection District.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The consolidation of Fire and Emergency Medical System dispatch services at the Santa Cruz Regional 911 center and mutual aid agreements between districts have created an efficient virtual single service district for those services in the entire county. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Board vote 42 Agree
F2:
Shared services between fire districts have improved response times, training, and services across the county. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Board voted 42 to partially disagree. Shared services in training, fleet maintenance, computer services and joint purchasing have created efficiencies within the specific discipline for those districts who participate in such programs. Automatic and Mutual Aid agreements do provide improved response times for those who participate in such agreements between agencies.
F3:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District did not take advantage of the opportunity to pursue consolidation when the Aptos Fire Chief retired in 2014. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Board of Directors voted 51 to agree.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District should work together to merge and form a MidCounty Fire Protection District. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The Board of Directors voted 60: will not be implemented. The feasibility of merging, consolidating or other enhanced models of governance has been studied several times since the publishing of the 1973 Sierra Report. Most of the proposed efficiencies highlighted in the Sierra Report have been implemented. Additional studies such as the 1986 Hughes, Heiss report; 1992 Mid County Consolidation Feasibility Study; 1993 Ralph Anderson Report; 1994 addendum to the Ralph Anderson Report and the extensive joint exploration in 2000 by the Aptos and Central Fire Boards have not resulted in a consolidation. In no era has consultant conclusions affected a governance determination suggesting the two Districts can provide enhanced services or significant savings as the product of a consolidation. Extensive study has consistently concluded that the greatest economic savings results from Fire Station closure. Station distribution and response times are in line with or exceed our Standards of Coverage response time policy. Modest savings may be recognized through shrinking Administrative Staff but as the Cooperative Prevention model has highlighted – agencies are running at minimal levels and combining staff would only allow status quo service levels. The concern for abdication of local control will inhibit further analysis until such a time as system distress or as yet unrealized significant benefit is demonstrated by the dissolution of independent Districts established by law to serve their community. Lastly, in the 14’15’ Grand Jury report it was observed on that “bigger is not automatically better” as well as “local leadership and community involvement and support are important factors which must be taken into consideration”. This sage advice is universal in its application.
F4:
The differences in pay scales and benefits between Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District are issues that must be addressed prior to consolidation. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Board of Directors voted 42 to agree.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District should work together to merge and form a MidCounty Fire Protection District. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The Board of Directors voted 60: will not be implemented. The feasibility of merging, consolidating or other enhanced models of governance has been studied several times since the publishing of the 1973 Sierra Report. Most of the proposed efficiencies highlighted in the Sierra Report have been implemented. Additional studies such as the 1986 Hughes, Heiss report; 1992 Mid County Consolidation Feasibility Study; 1993 Ralph Anderson Report; 1994 addendum to the Ralph Anderson Report and the extensive joint exploration in 2000 by the Aptos and Central Fire Boards have not resulted in a consolidation. In no era has consultant conclusions affected a governance determination suggesting the two Districts can provide enhanced services or significant savings as the product of a consolidation. Extensive study has consistently concluded that the greatest economic savings results from Fire Station closure. Station distribution and response times are in line with or exceed our Standards of Coverage response time policy. Modest savings may be recognized through shrinking Administrative Staff but as the Cooperative Prevention model has highlighted – agencies are running at minimal levels and combining staff would only allow status quo service levels. The concern for abdication of local control will inhibit further analysis until such a time as system distress or as yet unrealized significant benefit is demonstrated by the dissolution of independent Districts established by law to serve their community. Lastly, in the 14’15’ Grand Jury report it was observed on that “bigger is not automatically better” as well as “local leadership and community involvement and support are important factors which must be taken into consideration”. This sage advice is universal in its application.
F5:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District have a common problem resulting from excessive and unreasonable Public Records Act requests. These requests have negatively impacted the daily administration, budgets and operations of the districts. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Board of Directors voted 60 to agree.
F6:
The lack of enforced policies and procedures regarding conflicts of interest and board member interactions in district operations, has interfered with the ability of the Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District to consider further shared services or consolidation. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The Board of Directors voted 42 to partially disagree. The Board of Directors of the Central Fire Protection District do not believe there has been any enforcement issues with policy and procedure regarding conflict of interest of Board Member interactions in District Operations within the Central Fire District. Current operational functions and services such as Fleet Maintenance, Information Technology has continued to functioned with minimal effect. In support of this observation is correspondence from the Grand Jury Foreperson indicating the belief that the issue does not lay with Central Fire District. The disruptive behavior caused by Board Member interference does inhibit further consideration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Central Fire Protection District should adopt and enforce clear and comprehensive conflict of interest regulations for Board Members. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED x HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The Board of Directors voted 60 “Has not been implemented but will be implemented in the near future. The Board of Directors is reviewing updated language to the Board of Directors bylaws at its August 2015 Board meeting with scheduled ratification at the September 2015 Board meeting.
F7:
The joint Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District Cooperative Fire Prevention Program is successful and could benefit the county if made permanent. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): To date the CPP has been successful in identifying organizational practices and procedures needed to streamline joint operations. The agencies continue to address those organizational differences. The program was never intended to serve County residents other than in those served by the two fire districts. A much larger organization including a different governance model would be required to expand services to the whole county. In addition the economic capacity to fund increased service levels and lack of service expectation of smaller agencies makes it unlikely they would become users of such a proposed model. Board of Directors voted 60 to partially disagree
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The governing bodies of Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District should adopt the three year plan for the Cooperative Fire Prevention Program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The Board of Directors voted 42: Requires further analysis. This study has not been completed and requires ratification of a memorandum of understanding. Both agencies need agreement of financial terms and further evaluation on integration of policy and practices is ongoing. This process will take a minimum of 36 months to complete.
F8:
Expansion of the Central Fire Protection District’s fleet services department is needed to allow a larger number of districts to contract with this service. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The Board of Directors voted 60 to agree.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Central Fire Protection District should explore expansion of its fleet maintenance services to support contracts with a greater number of local fire districts. x HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The Board of Directors has voted 60 to agree.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The consolidation of Fire and Emergency Medical System dispatch services at the Santa Cruz Regional 911 center and mutual aid agreements between districts have created an efficient virtual single service district for those services in the entire county. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
F2:
Shared services between fire districts have improved response times, training, and services across the county. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
F11:
The differences in policies and procedures of the four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley inhibit future consolidation. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
The four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley should further align their policies and procedures in anticipation of future consolidation. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The Felton Fire Protection District will not be implementing this recommendation. On of this Grand Jury report, the report reads, “While consolidation is something the Grand Jury generally advocates, in the case of the SLV, it should only be used if staffing or financial needs threaten the viability of one or more districts.” If staffing, financial or some other issue arises that causes one or more of the SLV fire districts to not be viable, this would be the time to consider consolidation of one or more of the SLV fire districts.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The consolidation of Fire and Emergency Medical System dispatch services at the Santa Cruz Regional 911 center and mutual aid agreements between districts have created an efficient virtual single service district for those services in the entire county. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
F2:
Shared services between fire districts have improved response times, training, and services across the county. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
F10:
Scotts Valley Fire Protection District is the most logical partner for consolidation or shared services with Branciforte Fire Protection District. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
Branciforte Fire Protection District should negotiate with Scotts Valley Fire Protection District for the provision of managerial oversight of administration and operations by Scotts Valley. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Upon receipt of a request by the Branciforte Fire Protection District Board of Directors, the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District Board of Directors will negotiate, in earnest, for the provision of managerial oversight of administration and operations by Scotts Valley FPD for the Branciforte FPD. The timeframe will be based on Branciforte FPD’s initiation of a request.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The consolidation of Fire and Emergency Medical System dispatch services at the Santa Cruz Regional 911 center and mutual aid agreements between districts have created an efficient virtual single service district for those services in the entire county. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
F2:
Shared services between fire districts have improved response times, training, and services across the county. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
F11:
The differences in policies and procedures of the four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley inhibit future consolidation. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
The four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley should further align their policies and procedures in anticipation of future consolidation. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Due to the diversity and differences within the four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley, we, the Board of Directors of the Zayante Fire District do not believe it feasible to consider consolidation at this time. Each district encompasses distinct differences in population, geography, and relationships with the people within the communities that would make it difficult for a singular entity to reasonably control or manage all the districts. Further, the wealth of knowledge and understanding of the communities held by the existing management in each district, would be lost if consolidated. While consolidation might look good on paper, we believe it would ultimately be not cost effective, a detriment to response times, difficult supervision over long distances and lack of understanding of the people at each station, their skills, needs, schedules and moral.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Local jurisdictions have not provided adequate emergency shelter to accommodate the vast majority (80%) of the more than 3,500 total homeless persons in Santa Cruz County (using 2013 PIT data). X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Capitola along with the County and the other cities work together under the auspices of the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP). The HAP’s strategy is to prioritize permanently ending homelessness for people experiencing it through national best practice strategies such as permanent supportive housing and homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing programs. While we believe this is the right approach to end homelessness for individuals experiencing it, we recognize the ongoing need for emergency shelter and we have worked to fund and ensure availability of emergency winter shelter each year in both north and South County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Strategies to end homelessness for vulnerable populations is underway. These include the following: ● The County’s Human Services Department is providing CalWorks housing support program through a partnership with the Homeless Services Center Rebele Shelter that is shortening the length of stay for homeless families and transitioning them to stable housing quickly; ● The County’s Planning Department provides the maximum funding allowed for its former redevelopment funds in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing targeted to prevent and shorten family and individual experiences of homelessness; ● The Homeless Action Partnership is developing a Coordinated Entry system that will streamline access to services and end homelessness quickly. ● The Coordinated Entry system will implement the VISPDAT, a vulnerability index that ensures that the most vulnerable homeless individuals in our community access appropriate services; ● Community Programs funding across jurisdictions is focused on outcome based approaches; ● The opening of the Paul Lee Loft in 2008 provided 48 year round emergency shelter beds. This program is currently being revised to focus on vulnerable populations on a path to housing; ● The Recuperative Care Center was opened in 2014 providing medical respite for people who are homeless and are being discharged from the hospital but require follow up care and a safe and healthy environment; ● The County has established an Interagency Staff Coordinating Group to ensure that a system approach for care coordination is in place for vulnerable populations. The jurisdictions believe that these and other strategies more quickly and effectively end homelessness among the most vulnerable individuals experiencing homelessness than emergency shelter.
F2:
Despite persistent unmet needs, local jurisdictions have chosen not to fund or plan to increase the number of emergency shelter beds and services. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Over the last several years number of emergency shelter beds and services in North County has increased. Those projects include the Paul Lee Loft in 2008, and the Recuperative Care Center serving medically vulnerable people who are homeless and being discharged from hospitals in January of 2014. In addition, while not the subject of this report, additional shelter beds in Watsonville have been or are being opened through the Pajaro Rescue Mission/Teen Challenge and the Paget Center serving homeless veterans, which opened in 2013. Although as a region we are prioritizing permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing and prevention, considering additional emergency and interim services is a key action strategy under AllIn, the recently adopted countywide strategic plan, which states: “Engage the community around developing additional emergency and interim services for unmet health and safety needs of persons living outdoors, including small shelters around the county, warming centers and improvements to existing shelters.” (AllIn page 28) Obviously, as long as people are sleeping outside more needs to be done to identify the resources needed to end homelessness and to shelter individuals who are experiencing it. The FY 2015/16 budget adopted by the County includes an additional Homeless/Housing Coordination staff person who will be located in the County Administrator’s Office and will work with the Interagency Staff Coordinating Group.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Strategies to end homelessness for vulnerable populations is underway. These include the following: ● The County’s Human Services Department is providing CalWorks housing support program through a partnership with the Homeless Services Center Rebele Shelter that is shortening the length of stay for homeless families and transitioning them to stable housing quickly; ● The County’s Planning Department provides the maximum funding allowed for its former redevelopment funds in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing targeted to prevent and shorten family and individual experiences of homelessness; ● The Homeless Action Partnership is developing a Coordinated Entry system that will streamline access to services and end homelessness quickly. ● The Coordinated Entry system will implement the VISPDAT, a vulnerability index that ensures that the most vulnerable homeless individuals in our community access appropriate services; ● Community Programs funding across jurisdictions is focused on outcome based approaches; ● The opening of the Paul Lee Loft in 2008 provided 48 year round emergency shelter beds. This program is currently being revised to focus on vulnerable populations on a path to housing; ● The Recuperative Care Center was opened in 2014 providing medical respite for people who are homeless and are being discharged from the hospital but require follow up care and a safe and healthy environment; ● The County has established an Interagency Staff Coordinating Group to ensure that a system approach for care coordination is in place for vulnerable populations. The jurisdictions believe that these and other strategies more quickly and effectively end homelessness among the most vulnerable individuals experiencing homelessness than emergency shelter.
F3:
Reliance on the National Guard Armory with its strict rules and regulations limits the effectiveness of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The National Guard Armory is accessed through a “License to Use State Military Facility” between the County of Santa Cruz and the Military Department, State of California. The License makes the armory facility available for use as an Emergency Shelter nightly between the hours of 6:00 PM through 7:00 AM October 15th through April 15th except “during any period that any organization of the State Militia or of the Armed Forces of the United States is conducting drills or other military training or activity at the armory.” Besides limiting hours of use the License prohibits the use of intoxicating beverages and tobacco, and stipulates daily cleaning requirements. Use of the facility is controlled by California Government Code §1530115301.6 as an emergency response operation in order to prevent “the loss of life” of homeless persons during winter weather conditions. The State requires the operator to ensure basic safety and security. Limited nighttimeonly access to shelter in a crowded cavernous facility is not a program that anyone would design to effectively end homelessness. The goal of the winter shelter program is to provide emergency nighttime shelter. Cold weather emergency shelter does not solve homelessness for individuals but is a last resort humanitarian provision of shelter. Parameters set by the State Military Department are not the primary factor limiting effectiveness of the Armory; it is likely that any site used for this purpose would have many of the same limitations. The primary factors that limit the effectiveness of the Armory are outlined elsewhere in the Grand Jury report, and include the number of beds and the costs associated with transporting clients to the site.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Jurisdictions have been and will continue to seek to identify an alternative site to the Armory for emergency winter shelter. Considerations include neighborhood impacts and competing priorities for funding.
F4:
The absence of a backup plan to replace the National Guard Armory threatens the continuing existence of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): As described above, the Armory is a facility that provides minimal emergency winter shelter. The building is owned by the State Department of the Military and access to it for cold weather shelter is dependent on the State’s ability to provide staffing at the facility. While the State’s ability to provide access is assessed annually, the Military Department has demonstrated a commitment to continue the program. The County and the four cities jointly provide funding to operate emergency winter shelter programs through the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP) and have demonstrated their commitment to emergency winter shelter by providing decades of funding for the programs. On multiple occasions the jurisdictions have sought to identify alternative sites for winter shelter. There are very limited sites that could serve this purpose. Potential alternative sites have been ruled out for reasons ranging from neighborhood concerns, transportation requirements, access to services required to safely run an emergency program (meals, bathrooms, showers) and funding. Finally, an alternative site would require significant investments of financial capital and political will. As stated above, emergency shelter does not end or shorten an individual’s experience of homelessness and the significant reduction of homelessness our community has experienced recently (44% reduction since 2013 according to the 2015 Santa Cruz County Homeless Census and Survey) can be attributed, at least in part, to prioritizing effective programs proven to end homelessness. These programs include permanent supportive housing and prevention and rapid rehousing. Each of the jurisdictions participates in funding for programs that employ these strategies. The jurisdictions appreciate the Grand Jury’s concern with the issues at the Armory and will continue to seek alternative sites for emergency cold weather shelter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Jurisdictions have been and will continue to seek to identify an alternative site to the Armory for emergency winter shelter. Considerations include neighborhood impacts and competing priorities for funding.
F5:
Insufficient emergency shelter capacity limits access to coordinated entry services for the homeless population. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Developing a coordinated entry system is a key strategy identified in AllIn the countywide strategic plan to address homelessness. A coordinated entry system streamlines and targets crisis response to quickly assess a household’s needs and provides tailored resources for persons in crisis. Coordinated entry is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Continua of Care under the HEARTH Act. The HAP is in the process of developing and identifying funding to implement such a system. The essential premise of a coordinated entry system is to streamline access to services so that there is no “wrong door” for entry to services. While we agree with the Grand Jury’s assessment that emergency shelter is a potential point for a homeless person to access a coordinated entry system, it is not the only access point for services and we are striving to provide a streamlined range of access to homeless services. We fully intend to have all County and City funded emergency shelters participate in the coordinated entry system.
F6:
Insufficient numbers of personnel and case managers at the emergency shelters limit the services that can be provided to homeless individuals. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): There is no question that case management services are a key component to ending homelessness for many individuals. This need is recognized by local nonprofit agencies, jurisdictions, the Homeless Action Partnership and Smart Solutions to Homelessness. Case management support linked with access to housing is the solution to homelessness for a significant share of the people experiencing it and there are shelter programs focused specifically on pairing emergency shelter to case management to lead to permanent housing. Services that are offered at the Armory are limited to those required to operate a safe cold weather shelter. Homeless individuals can and do form relationships and build trust with staff with the Homeless Services Center, the program operator, but case management is not specifically part of the program. There is a much more pressing need for case management services for people who are on a path to permanent housing. Recognizing the role of year round shelter programs to resolve homelessness, HSC has recently adapted their program at the Pau Lee Loft to pair case management with housing resources for people on a pathway to permanent housing. While resources are constrained, we are constantly looking for opportunities for additional case management funding. In the absence of sufficient funding the community has been providing volunteer resources such as the Wings and the Housing Navigator programs associated with the 180/2020 Initiative. Additional case management is supported through Community Grant programs and has been included in an application for CDBG funds submitted by the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate more funds for additional case managers for the local emergency shelters. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Additional funding for case management has been a priority of both local jurisdictions and nonprofit agencies. Funding has been provided by County Human Services CHAMP program, identified above, HSC has been awarded HUD funds through the HAP to provide case management and permanent housing for chronically homeless disabled individuals, a County application for CDBG funds has been submitted that, if successful, would provide three additional case managers for chronically homeless and medically vulnerable people. In addition, case management positions have been funded through Supportive Services for Veteran Families grants and the HUD VA Supportive Housing (VASH) program. All jurisdictions have adopted AllIn and are coordinating funding efforts for implementation based upon its principles.
F7:
Insufficient number of staff dedicated to grant writing results in missed grant funding opportunities. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): When it was announced this spring that the Homeless Services Center (HSC) was not awarded funding through the State’s Emergency Solutions Grant program it became clear that funding and operating a multiservice program is complex and dynamic. Skilled response to varied and changing funding opportunities is a vital component to stability, and the level of staffing dedicated to fund development is determined by HSC. The HAP has been very successful in raising funds for homeless services from federal and State sources, bringing in close to $30,000,000 since 2001.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate additional staff to seek more grant funding for emergency shelters. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The County’s Fiscal Year 201516 Budget includes funding for a full time Homeless Coordinator working out of the County Administrator’s Office. The HAP is providing funding to the Homeless Services Center for technical assistance to support the organization’s competition for future State Emergency Solutions Grant program funding.
F28:
Obviously, as long as people are sleeping outside more needs to be done to identify the resources needed to end homelessness and to shelter individuals who are experiencing it. The FY 2015/16 budget adopted by the County includes an additional Homeless/Housing Coordination staff person who will be located in the County Administrator’s Office and will work with the Interagency Staff Coordinating Group. Finding 3: Reliance on the National Guard Armory with its strict rules and regulations limits the effectiveness of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The National Guard Armory is accessed through a “License to Use State Military Facility” between the County of Santa Cruz and the Military Department, State of California. The License makes the armory facility available for use as an Emergency Shelter nightly between the hours of 6:00 PM through 7:00 AM October 15th through April 15th except “during any period that any organization of the State Militia or of the Armed Forces of the United States is conducting drills or other military training or activity at the armory.” Besides limiting hours of use the License prohibits the use of intoxicating beverages and tobacco, and stipulates daily cleaning requirements. Use of the facility is controlled by California Government Code §1530115301.6 as an emergency response operation in order to prevent “the loss of life” of homeless persons during winter weather conditions. The State requires the operator to ensure basic safety and security. Limited nighttimeonly access to shelter in a crowded cavernous facility is not a program that anyone would design to effectively end homelessness. The goal of the winter shelter program is to provide emergency nighttime shelter. Cold weather emergency shelter does not solve homelessness for individuals but is a last resort humanitarian provision of shelter. Parameters set by the State Military Department are not the primary factor limiting effectiveness of the Armory; it is likely that any site used for this purpose would have many of the same limitations. The primary factors that limit the effectiveness of the Armory are outlined elsewhere in the Grand Jury report, and include the number of beds and the costs associated with transporting clients to the site. Finding 4: The absence of a backup plan to replace the National Guard Armory threatens the continuing existence of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): As described above, the Armory is a facility that provides minimal emergency winter shelter. The building is owned by the State Department of the Military and access to it for cold weather shelter is dependent on the State’s ability to provide staffing at the facility. While the State’s ability to provide access is assessed annually, the Military Department has demonstrated a commitment to continue the program. The County and the four cities jointly provide funding to operate emergency winter shelter programs through the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP) and have demonstrated their commitment to emergency winter shelter by providing decades of funding for the programs. On multiple occasions the jurisdictions have sought to identify alternative sites for winter shelter. There are very limited sites that could serve this purpose. Potential alternative sites have been ruled out for reasons ranging from neighborhood concerns, transportation requirements, access to services required to safely run an emergency program (meals, bathrooms, showers) and funding. Finally, an alternative site would require significant investments of financial capital and political will. As stated above, emergency shelter does not end or shorten an individual’s experience of homelessness and the significant reduction of homelessness our community has experienced recently (44% reduction since 2013 according to the 2015 Santa Cruz County Homeless Census and Survey) can be attributed, at least in part, to prioritizing effective programs proven to end homelessness. These programs include permanent supportive housing and prevention and rapid rehousing. Each of the jurisdictions participates in funding for programs that employ these strategies. The jurisdictions appreciate the Grand Jury’s concern with the issues at the Armory and will continue to seek alternative sites for emergency cold weather shelter. Finding 5: Insufficient emergency shelter capacity limits access to coordinated entry services for the homeless population. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Developing a coordinated entry system is a key strategy identified in AllIn the countywide strategic plan to address homelessness. A coordinated entry system streamlines and targets crisis response to quickly assess a household’s needs and provides tailored resources for persons in crisis. Coordinated entry is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Continua of Care under the HEARTH Act. The HAP is in the process of developing and identifying funding to implement such a system. The essential premise of a coordinated entry system is to streamline access to services so that there is no “wrong door” for entry to services. While we agree with the Grand Jury’s assessment that emergency shelter is a potential point for a homeless person to access a coordinated entry system, it is not the only access point for services and we are striving to provide a streamlined range of access to homeless services. We fully intend to have all County and City funded emergency shelters participate in the coordinated entry system. Finding 6: Insufficient numbers of personnel and case managers at the emergency shelters limit the services that can be provided to homeless individuals. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): There is no question that case management services are a key component to ending homelessness for many individuals. This need is recognized by local nonprofit agencies, jurisdictions, the Homeless Action Partnership and Smart Solutions to Homelessness. Case management support linked with access to housing is the solution to homelessness for a significant share of the people experiencing it and there are shelter programs focused specifically on pairing emergency shelter to case management to lead to permanent housing. Services that are offered at the Armory are limited to those required to operate a safe cold weather shelter. Homeless individuals can and do form relationships and build trust with staff with the Homeless Services Center, the program operator, but case management is not specifically part of the program. There is a much more pressing need for case management services for people who are on a path to permanent housing. Recognizing the role of year round shelter programs to resolve homelessness, HSC has recently adapted their program at the Pau Lee Loft to pair case management with housing resources for people on a pathway to permanent housing. While resources are constrained, we are constantly looking for opportunities for additional case management funding. In the absence of sufficient funding the community has been providing volunteer resources such as the Wings and the Housing Navigator programs associated with the 180/2020 Initiative. Additional case management is supported through Community Grant programs and has been included in an application for CDBG funds submitted by the County. Finding 7: Insufficient number of staff dedicated to grant writing results in missed grant funding opportunities. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): When it was announced this spring that the Homeless Services Center (HSC) was not awarded funding through the State’s Emergency Solutions Grant program it became clear that funding and operating a multiservice program is complex and dynamic. Skilled response to varied and changing funding opportunities is a vital component to stability, and the level of staffing dedicated to fund development is determined by HSC. The HAP has been very successful in raising funds for homeless services from federal and State sources, bringing in close to $30,000,000 since 2001.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Local jurisdictions have not provided adequate emergency shelter to accommodate the vast majority (80%) of the more than 3,500 total homeless persons in Santa Cruz County (using 2013 PIT data). X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation:
F2:
Despite persistent unmet needs, local jurisdictions have chosen not to fund or plan to increase the number of emergency shelter beds and services. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation:
F3:
Reliance on the National Guard Armory with its strict rules and regulations limits the effectiveness of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation:
F4:
The absence of a backup plan to replace the National Guard Armory threatens the continuing existence of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation:
F5:
Insufficient emergency shelter capacity limits access to coordinated entry services for the homeless population. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
F6:
Insufficient numbers of personnel and case managers at the emergency shelters limit the services that can be provided to homeless individuals. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate more funds for additional case managers for the local emergency shelters. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation:
F7:
Insufficient number of staff dedicated to grant writing results in missed grant funding opportunities. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate additional staff to seek more grant funding for emergency shelters. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation:
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Local jurisdictions have not provided adequate emergency shelter to accommodate the vast majority (80%) of the more than 3,500 total homeless persons in Santa Cruz County (using 2013 PIT data). X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below <b>DISAGREE</b> - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The County and the four cities, including the City of Santa Cruz, work together under the auspices of the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP). The HAP's strategy is to prioritize permanently ending homelessness for people experiencing it through national best practice strategies such as permanent supportive housing and homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing programs. While we believe this is the right approach to end homelessness for individuals experiencing it, we recognize the on-going need for emergency shelter and we have worked to fund and ensure availability of emergency winter shelter each year plus two year round shelters on the Homeless Services Center campus. This includes the 48 bed Paul Lee Loft and the 32 bed River Street Shelter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Strategies to end homelessness for vulnerable populations is underway. These include the following: • The County's Human Services Department is providing CalWorks housing support program through a partnership with the Homeless Services Center Rebele Shelter that is shortening the length of stay for homeless families and transitioning them to stable housing quickly; The County's Planning Department provides the maximum funding allowed for its former redevelopment funds in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing targeted to prevent and shorten family and individual experiences of homelessness; The Homeless Action Partnership is developing a Coordinated Entry system that will streamline access to services and end homelessness quickly; The Coordinated Entry system will implement the VI-SPDAT, a vulnerability index . that ensures that the most vulnerable homeless individuals in our community access appropriate services; Community Programs funding across jurisdictions is focused on outcome-based • approaches; The opening of the Paul Lee Loft in 2008 provided 48 year round emergency shelter beds. This program is currently being revised to focus on vulnerable populations on a path to housing: The Recuperative Care Center was opened in 2014 providing medical respite for people who are homeless and are being discharged from the hospital but require follow up care and a safe and healthy environment; The County has established an Inter-agency Staff Coordinating Group to ensure that a system approach for care coordination is in place for vulnerable populations. The jurisdictions believe that these and other strategies more quickly and effectively end homelessness among the most vulnerable individuals experiencing homelessness than emergency shelter.
F2:
Despite persistent unmet needs, local jurisdictions have chosen not to fund or plan to increase the number of emergency shelter beds and services. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below __ DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Over the last several years there has been an increased number of emergency shelter beds and services in North County. Those projects include the Paul Lee Loft in 2008, and the Recuperative Care Center serving medically vulnerable people who are homeless and being discharged from hospitals in January of 2014. Both of these projects were supported by the City of Santa Cruz. Although as a region we are prioritizing permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing and prevention, considering additional emergency and interim services is a key action strategy under All-In, the recently adopted county-wide strategic plan, which states: "Engage the community around developing additional emergency and interim services for unmet health and safety needs of persons living outdoors, including small shelters around the county, warming centers and improvements to existing shelters." (All-In )
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Strategies to end homelessness for vulnerable populations is underway. These include the following: • The County's Human Services Department is providing CalWorks housing support program through a partnership with the Homeless Services Center Rebele Shelter that is shortening the length of stay for homeless families and transitioning them to stable housing quickly; The County's Planning Department provides the maximum funding allowed for its former redevelopment funds in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing targeted to prevent and shorten family and individual experiences of homelessness; The Homeless Action Partnership is developing a Coordinated Entry system that will streamline access to services and end homelessness quickly; The Coordinated Entry system will implement the VI-SPDAT, a vulnerability index . that ensures that the most vulnerable homeless individuals in our community access appropriate services; Community Programs funding across jurisdictions is focused on outcome-based • approaches; The opening of the Paul Lee Loft in 2008 provided 48 year round emergency shelter beds. This program is currently being revised to focus on vulnerable populations on a path to housing: The Recuperative Care Center was opened in 2014 providing medical respite for people who are homeless and are being discharged from the hospital but require follow up care and a safe and healthy environment; The County has established an Inter-agency Staff Coordinating Group to ensure that a system approach for care coordination is in place for vulnerable populations. The jurisdictions believe that these and other strategies more quickly and effectively end homelessness among the most vulnerable individuals experiencing homelessness than emergency shelter.
F3:
Reliance on the National Guard Armory with its strict rules and regulations limits the effectiveness of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The National Guard Armory is accessed through a "License to Use State Military Facility" between the County of Santa Cruz and the Military Department, State of California. The License makes the armory facility available for use as an Emergency Shelter nightly between the hours of 6:00 PM through 7:00 AM October 15th through April 15th except "during any period that any organization of the State Militia or of the Armed Forces of the United States is conducting drills or other military training or activity at the armory". Besides limiting hours of use the License prohibits the use of intoxicating beverages and tobacco, and stipulates daily cleaning requirements. Use of the facility is in accordance with California Government Code §15301-15301.6 as an emergency response operation in order to prevent "the loss of life" of homeless persons during winter weather conditions. The State requires the operator to ensure basic safety and security. Parameters set by the State Military Department are not the primary factor limiting effectiveness of the Armory; it is likely that any site used for this purpose would have many of the same limitations. The primary factors that limit the effectiveness of the Armory are outlined elsewhere in the Grand Jury report, and include the number of beds and the costs associated with transporting clients to the site.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED ___ HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) ___ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Jurisdictions have been and will continue to seek to identify an alternative site to the Armory for emergency winter shelter. Considerations include neighborhood impacts and competing priorities for funding. 3 . ** 10.
F4:
The absence of a back-up plan to replace the National Guard Armory threatens the continuing existence of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): As described above, the Armory is a facility that provides minimal emergency winter shelter. The building is owned by the State Department of the Military and access to it for cold weather shelter is dependent on the State's ability to provide staffing at the facility. While the State's ability to provide access is assessed annually, the Military Department has demonstrated a commitment to continue the program. The City of Santa Cruz along with the County and the two other north county cities jointly provide funding to operate the emergency winter shelter program through the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP) and have demonstrated a commitment to emergency winter shelter by providing decades of funding for the programs. On multiple occasions the jurisdictions have sought to identify alternative sites for winter shelter. There are very limited sites that could serve this purpose. Potential alternative sites have been ruled out for reasons ranging from neighborhood concerns, transportation requirements, access to services required to safely run an emergency program (meals, bathrooms, showers) and funding. Finally, an alternative site would require significant investments of financial capital and political will. Emergency shelter does not end or shorten an individual's experience of homelessness and the significant reduction of homelessness our community has experienced recently (44% reduction since 2013 according to the 2015 Santa Cruz County Homeless Census and Survey) can be attributed, at least in part, to prioritizing effective programs proven to end homelessness. These programs include permanent supportive housing and prevention and rapid rehousing. The City of Santa Cruz as well as each of the other jurisdictions participates in funding for programs that employ these strategies. The jurisdictions appreciate the Grand Jury's concern with the issues at the Armory and will continue to seek alternative sites for emergency cold weather shelter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED ___ HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) ___ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Jurisdictions have been and will continue to seek to identify an alternative site to the Armory for emergency winter shelter. Considerations include neighborhood impacts and competing priorities for funding. 3 . ** 10.
F5:
Insufficient emergency shelter capacity limits access to coordinated entry services for the homeless population. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Developing a coordinated entry system is a key strategy identified in All-In the county- wide strategic plan to address homelessness. A coordinated entry system streamlines and targets crisis response that quickly assesses a household's needs and provides tailored resources for persons in crisis. Coordinated entry is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Continua of Care under the HEARTH Act. The HAP is in the process of developing and identifying funding to implement such a system. The essential premise of a coordinated entry system is to streamline access to services so that there is no "wrong door" for entry to services. While we agree with the Grand Jury's assessment that emergency shelter is a potential point for a homeless person to access a coordinated entry system, it is not the only access point for services and we are striving to provide a streamlined range of access to homeless services. We fully intend to have all County and City funded emergency shelters participate in the coordinated entry system.
F6:
Insufficient numbers of personnel and case managers at the emergency shelters limit the services that can be provided to homeless individuals. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below <b>DISAGREE - explain below</b> Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): There is no question that case management services are a key component to ending homelessness for many individuals. This need is recognized by local nonprofit agencies, jurisdictions, the Homeless Action Partnership and Smart Solutions to Homelessness. Case management support linked with access to housing is the solution to homelessness for a significant share of the people experiencing it and there are shelter programs focused specifically on pairing emergency shelter to case management to lead to permanent housing. Services that are offered at the Armory are limited to those required to operate a safe cold weather shelter. Homeless individuals can and do form relationships and build trust with staff with the Homeless Services Center, the program operator, but case management is not specifically part of the program. There is a much more pressing need for case management services for people who are on a path to permanent housing. Recognizing the role of year round shelter programs to resolve homelessness, HSC has recently adapted their program at the Paul Lee Loft to pair case management with housing resources for people on a pathway to permanent housing. While resources are constrained, we are constantly looking for opportunities for additional case management funding. In the absence of sufficient funding the community has been providing volunteer resources such as the Wings and the Housing Navigator programs associated with the 180/2020 Initiative. Additional case management is supported through Community Grant programs and has been included in an application for CDBG funds submitted by the County. 6 20 7 . 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate more funds for additional case managers for the local emergency shelters. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) ___ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Additional funding for case management has been a priority of both local jurisdictions and nonprofit agencies. Funding has been provided by County Human Services CHAMP program, identified above, HSC has been awarded HUD funds through the HAP to provide case management and permanent housing for chronically homeless disabled individuals, a County application for CDBG funds has been submitted that, if successful, would provide three additional case managers for chronically homeless and medically vulnerable people. In addition, case management positions have been funded through Supportive Services for Veteran Families grants and the HUD VA Supportive Housing (VASH) program. All jurisdictions have adopted All-In and are coordinating funding efforts for implementation based upon its principles.
F7:
Insufficient number of staff dedicated to grant writing results in missed grant funding opportunities. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below __ DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): When it was announced this spring that the Homeless Services Center (HSC) was not awarded funding through the State's Emergency Solutions Grant program it became clear that funding and operating a multi-service program is complex and dynamic. Skilled response to varied and changing funding opportunities is a vital component to stability, and the level of staffing dedicated to fund development is determined by HSC. The HAP has been very successful in raising funds for homeless services from federal and State sources, bringing in close to $30 million since 2001.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate additional staff to seek more grant funding for emergency shelters. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The County's Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget includes funding for a full time Homeless Coordinator working out of the County Administrator's Office. The HAP is providing funding to the Homeless Services Center for technical assistance to support the organization's competition for future State Emergency Solutions Grant program funding.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Local jurisdictions have not provided adequate emergency shelter to accommodate the vast majority (80%) of the more than 3,500 total homeless persons in Santa Cruz County (using 2013 PIT data). X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The County and the four cities work together under the auspices of the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP). The HAP’s strategy is to prioritize permanently ending homelessness for people experiencing it through national best practice strategies such as permanent supportive housing and homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing programs. While we believe this is the right approach to end homelessness for individuals experiencing it, we recognize the on- going need for emergency shelter, and we have worked to fund and ensure availability of emergency winter shelter each year in both North and South County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Strategies to end homelessness for vulnerable populations is underway. These include the following: The County’s Human Services Department is providing CalWorks housing support program through a partnership with the Homeless Services Center Rebele Shelter that is shortening the length of stay for homeless families and transitioning them to stable housing quickly; The County’s Planning Department provides the maximum funding allowed for its former redevelopment funds in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing targeted to prevent and shorten family and individual experiences of homelessness; The Homeless Action Partnership is developing a Coordinated Entry system that will streamline access to services and end homelessness quickly. The Coordinated Entry system will implement the VI-SPDAT, a vulnerability index that ensures that the most vulnerable homeless individuals in our community access appropriate services; Community Programs funding across jurisdictions is focused on outcome based approaches; The opening of the Paul Lee Loft in 2008 provided 48 year round emergency shelter beds. This program is currently being revised to focus on vulnerable populations on a path to housing; The Recuperative Care Center was opened in 2014 providing medical respite for people who are homeless and are being discharged from the hospital but require follow up care and a safe and healthy environment; The County has established an Inter-agency Staff Coordinating Group to ensure that a system approach for care coordination is in place for vulnerable populations. The jurisdictions believe that these and other strategies more quickly and effectively end homelessness among the most vulnerable individuals experiencing homelessness than emergency shelter.
F2:
Despite persistent unmet needs, local jurisdictions have chosen not to fund or plan to increase the number of emergency shelter beds and services. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Over the last several years there has been an increased number of emergency shelter beds and services in North County. Those projects include the Paul Lee Loft in 2008, and the Recuperative Care Center in January of 2014 serving medically vulnerable people who are homeless and being discharged from hospitals. In addition, while not the subject of this report, additional shelter beds in Watsonville have been or are being opened through the Pajaro Rescue Mission/Teen Challenge and the Paget Center serving homeless veterans, which opened in 2013. Although as a region we are prioritizing permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing and prevention, considering additional emergency and interim services is a key action strategy under All-In, the recently adopted county-wide strategic plan, which states: “Engage the community around developing additional emergency and interim services for unmet health and safety needs of persons living outdoors, including small shelters around the county, warming centers and improvements to existing shelters.” (All-In ) Obviously, as long as people are sleeping outside more needs to be done to identify the resources needed to end homelessness and to shelter individuals who are experiencing it. The FY 2015/16 budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors includes an additional Homeless/Housing Coordination staff person who will be located in the County Administrator’s Office and will work with the Inter-agency Staff Coordinating Group.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Strategies to end homelessness for vulnerable populations is underway. These include the following: The County’s Human Services Department is providing CalWorks housing support program through a partnership with the Homeless Services Center Rebele Shelter that is shortening the length of stay for homeless families and transitioning them to stable housing quickly; The County’s Planning Department provides the maximum funding allowed for its former redevelopment funds in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing targeted to prevent and shorten family and individual experiences of homelessness; The Homeless Action Partnership is developing a Coordinated Entry system that will streamline access to services and end homelessness quickly. The Coordinated Entry system will implement the VI-SPDAT, a vulnerability index that ensures that the most vulnerable homeless individuals in our community access appropriate services; Community Programs funding across jurisdictions is focused on outcome based approaches; The opening of the Paul Lee Loft in 2008 provided 48 year round emergency shelter beds. This program is currently being revised to focus on vulnerable populations on a path to housing; The Recuperative Care Center was opened in 2014 providing medical respite for people who are homeless and are being discharged from the hospital but require follow up care and a safe and healthy environment; The County has established an Inter-agency Staff Coordinating Group to ensure that a system approach for care coordination is in place for vulnerable populations. The jurisdictions believe that these and other strategies more quickly and effectively end homelessness among the most vulnerable individuals experiencing homelessness than emergency shelter.
F3:
Reliance on the National Guard Armory with its strict rules and regulations limits the effectiveness of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The National Guard Armory is accessed through a “License to Use State Military Facility” between the County of Santa Cruz and the Military Department, State of California. The License makes the armory facility available for use as an Emergency Shelter nightly between the hours of 6:00 PM through 7:00 AM October 15th through April 15th except “during any period that any organization of the State Militia or of the Armed Forces of the United States is conducting drills or other military training or activity at the armory”. Besides limiting hours of use the License prohibits the use of intoxicating beverages and tobacco, and stipulates daily cleaning requirements. Use of the facility is in accordance with California Government Code §15301-15301.6 as an emergency response operation in order to prevent “the loss of life” of homeless persons during winter weather conditions. The State requires the operator to ensure basic safety and security. Limited nighttime-only access to shelter in a cavernous crowded facility is not a program that anyone would design to effectively end homelessness. The goal of the winter shelter program is to provide emergency night-time shelter. Cold weather emergency shelter does not solve homelessness for individuals but is a last resort humanitarian provision of shelter. Parameters set by the State Military Department are not the primary factor limiting effectiveness of the Armory; it is likely that any site used for this purpose would have many of the same limitations. The primary factors that limit the effectiveness of the Armory are outlined elsewhere in the Grand Jury report, and include the number of beds and the costs associated with transporting clients to the site.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Jurisdictions have been and will continue to seek to identify an alternative site to the Armory for emergency winter shelter. Considerations include neighborhood impacts and competing priorities for funding. During the next 6 months the following steps will be taken to identify an alternate site: the HAP Executive Committee will meet and will identify potential sites that include a building or buildings that could safely shelter a minimum of 75 people for emergency night time shelter, if any sites are found that appear potentially feasible, the HAP will performed a more detailed analysis and present such report to the Board of Supervisors and the relevant city councils.
F4:
The absence of a back-up plan to replace the National Guard Armory threatens the continuing existence of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): As described above, the Armory is a facility that provides minimal emergency winter shelter. The building is owned by the State Department of the Military and access to it for cold weather shelter is dependent on the State’s ability to provide staffing at the facility. While the State’s ability to provide access is assessed annually, the Military Department has demonstrated a commitment to continue the program. The County and the four cities jointly provide funding to operate emergency winter shelter programs through the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP) and have demonstrated their commitment to emergency winter shelter by providing decades of funding for the programs. On multiple occasions the jurisdictions have sought to identify alternative sites for winter shelter. There are very limited sites that could serve this purpose. Potential alternative sites have been ruled out for reasons ranging from neighborhood concerns, transportation requirements, access to services required to safely run an emergency program (meals, bathrooms, showers) and funding. Finally, an alternative site would require significant investments of financial capital and political will. As stated above, emergency shelter does not end or shorten an individual’s experience of homelessness and the significant reduction of homelessness (44% reduction since 2013 according to the 2015 Santa Cruz County Homeless Census and Survey) can be attributed, at least in part, to prioritizing effective programs proven to end homelessness. These programs include permanent supportive housing and prevention and rapid rehousing. Each of the jurisdictions participates in funding for programs that employ these strategies. The jurisdictions appreciate the Grand Jury’s concern with the issues at the Armory and the jurisdictions will continue to seek alternative sites for emergency cold weather shelter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Jurisdictions have been and will continue to seek to identify an alternative site to the Armory for emergency winter shelter. Considerations include neighborhood impacts and competing priorities for funding. During the next 6 months the following steps will be taken to identify an alternate site: the HAP Executive Committee will meet and will identify potential sites that include a building or buildings that could safely shelter a minimum of 75 people for emergency night time shelter, if any sites are found that appear potentially feasible, the HAP will performed a more detailed analysis and present such report to the Board of Supervisors and the relevant city councils.
F5:
Insufficient emergency shelter capacity limits access to coordinated entry services for the homeless population. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Developing a coordinated entry system is a key strategy identified in All-In the county-wide strategic plan to address homelessness. A coordinated entry system streamlines and targets crisis response that quickly assess a household’s needs and provides tailored resources for persons in crisis. Coordinated entry is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Continua of Care under the HEARTH Act. The HAP is in the process of developing and identifying funding to implement such a system. The essential premise of a coordinated entry system is to streamline access to services so that there is no “wrong door” for entry to services. While we agree with the Grand Jury’s assessment that emergency shelter is a potential point for a homeless person to access a coordinated entry system, it is not the only access point for services and we are striving to provide a streamlined range of access to homeless services. We fully intend to have all County and City funded emergency shelters participate in the coordinated entry system.
F6:
Insufficient numbers of personnel and case managers at the emergency shelters limit the services that can be provided to homeless individuals. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): There is no question that case management services are a key component to end homelessness for many individuals. This need is recognized by local nonprofit agencies, jurisdictions, the Homeless Action Partnership and Smart Solutions to Homelessness. Case management support linked with access to housing is the solution to homelessness for a significant share of the people experiencing it and there are shelter programs focused specifically on pairing emergency shelter to case management to lead to permanent housing. Services that are offered at the Armory are limited to those required to operate a safe cold weather shelter. Homeless individuals can and do form relationships and build trust with staff with the Homeless Services Center, the program operator, but case management is not specifically part of the program. There is a much more pressing need for case management services for people who are on a path to permanent housing. Recognizing the role of year round shelter programs to resolve homelessness, HSC has recently adapted their program at the Pau Lee Loft to pair case management with housing resources for people on a pathway to permanent housing. While resources are constrained, we are constantly looking for opportunities for additional case management funding. In the absence of sufficient funding the community has been providing volunteer resources such as the Wings and the Housing Navigator programs associated with the 180/2020 Initiative. Additional case management is supported through Community Grant programs and has been included in an application for CDBG funds submitted by the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate more funds for additional case managers for the local emergency shelters. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Additional funding for case management has been a priority of both local jurisdictions and nonprofit agencies. Funding has been provided by County Human Services CHAMP program, identified above, HSC has been awarded HUD funds through the HAP to provide case management and permanent housing for chronically homeless disabled individuals, a County application for CDBG funds has been submitted that, if successful, would provide three additional case managers for chronically homeless and medically vulnerable people. In addition, case management positions have been funded through Supportive Services for Veteran Families grants and the HUD VA Supportive Housing (VASH) program. All jurisdictions have adopted All-In and are coordinating funding efforts for implementation based upon its principles.
F7:
Insufficient number of staff dedicated to grant writing results in missed grant funding opportunities. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): When it was announced this spring that the Homeless Services Center (HSC) was not awarded funding through the State’s Emergency Solutions Grant program it became clear that funding and operating a multi-service program is complex and dynamic. Skilled response to varied and changing funding opportunities is a vital component to stability, and the level of staffing dedicated to fund development is determined by HSC. The HAP has been very successful in raising funds for homeless services from federal and State sources, bringing in close to $30,000,000 since 2001.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate additional staff to seek more grant funding for emergency shelters. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The County’s Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget includes funding for a full time Homeless Coordinator working out of the County Administrator’s Office. The HAP is providing funding to the Homeless Services Center for technical assistance to support the organization’s competition for future State Emergency Solutions Grant program funding.
F28:
Obviously, as long as people are sleeping outside more needs to be done to identify the resources needed to end homelessness and to shelter individuals who are experiencing it. The FY 2015/16 budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors includes an additional Homeless/Housing Coordination staff person who will be located in the County Administrator’s Office and will work with the Inter-agency Staff Coordinating Group. Finding 3: Reliance on the National Guard Armory with its strict rules and regulations limits the effectiveness of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The National Guard Armory is accessed through a “License to Use State Military Facility” between the County of Santa Cruz and the Military Department, State of California. The License makes the armory facility available for use as an Emergency Shelter nightly between the hours of 6:00 PM through 7:00 AM October 15th through April 15th except “during any period that any organization of the State Militia or of the Armed Forces of the United States is conducting drills or other military training or activity at the armory”. Besides limiting hours of use the License prohibits the use of intoxicating beverages and tobacco, and stipulates daily cleaning requirements. Use of the facility is in accordance with California Government Code §15301-15301.6 as an emergency response operation in order to prevent “the loss of life” of homeless persons during winter weather conditions. The State requires the operator to ensure basic safety and security. Limited nighttime-only access to shelter in a cavernous crowded facility is not a program that anyone would design to effectively end homelessness. The goal of the winter shelter program is to provide emergency night-time shelter. Cold weather emergency shelter does not solve homelessness for individuals but is a last resort humanitarian provision of shelter. Parameters set by the State Military Department are not the primary factor limiting effectiveness of the Armory; it is likely that any site used for this purpose would have many of the same limitations. The primary factors that limit the effectiveness of the Armory are outlined elsewhere in the Grand Jury report, and include the number of beds and the costs associated with transporting clients to the site. Finding 4: The absence of a back-up plan to replace the National Guard Armory threatens the continuing existence of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): As described above, the Armory is a facility that provides minimal emergency winter shelter. The building is owned by the State Department of the Military and access to it for cold weather shelter is dependent on the State’s ability to provide staffing at the facility. While the State’s ability to provide access is assessed annually, the Military Department has demonstrated a commitment to continue the program. The County and the four cities jointly provide funding to operate emergency winter shelter programs through the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP) and have demonstrated their commitment to emergency winter shelter by providing decades of funding for the programs. On multiple occasions the jurisdictions have sought to identify alternative sites for winter shelter. There are very limited sites that could serve this purpose. Potential alternative sites have been ruled out for reasons ranging from neighborhood concerns, transportation requirements, access to services required to safely run an emergency program (meals, bathrooms, showers) and funding. Finally, an alternative site would require significant investments of financial capital and political will. As stated above, emergency shelter does not end or shorten an individual’s experience of homelessness and the significant reduction of homelessness (44% reduction since 2013 according to the 2015 Santa Cruz County Homeless Census and Survey) can be attributed, at least in part, to prioritizing effective programs proven to end homelessness. These programs include permanent supportive housing and prevention and rapid rehousing. Each of the jurisdictions participates in funding for programs that employ these strategies. The jurisdictions appreciate the Grand Jury’s concern with the issues at the Armory and the jurisdictions will continue to seek alternative sites for emergency cold weather shelter. Finding 5: Insufficient emergency shelter capacity limits access to coordinated entry services for the homeless population. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Developing a coordinated entry system is a key strategy identified in All-In the county-wide strategic plan to address homelessness. A coordinated entry system streamlines and targets crisis response that quickly assess a household’s needs and provides tailored resources for persons in crisis. Coordinated entry is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Continua of Care under the HEARTH Act. The HAP is in the process of developing and identifying funding to implement such a system. The essential premise of a coordinated entry system is to streamline access to services so that there is no “wrong door” for entry to services. While we agree with the Grand Jury’s assessment that emergency shelter is a potential point for a homeless person to access a coordinated entry system, it is not the only access point for services and we are striving to provide a streamlined range of access to homeless services. We fully intend to have all County and City funded emergency shelters participate in the coordinated entry system. Finding 6: Insufficient numbers of personnel and case managers at the emergency shelters limit the services that can be provided to homeless individuals. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): There is no question that case management services are a key component to end homelessness for many individuals. This need is recognized by local nonprofit agencies, jurisdictions, the Homeless Action Partnership and Smart Solutions to Homelessness. Case management support linked with access to housing is the solution to homelessness for a significant share of the people experiencing it and there are shelter programs focused specifically on pairing emergency shelter to case management to lead to permanent housing. Services that are offered at the Armory are limited to those required to operate a safe cold weather shelter. Homeless individuals can and do form relationships and build trust with staff with the Homeless Services Center, the program operator, but case management is not specifically part of the program. There is a much more pressing need for case management services for people who are on a path to permanent housing. Recognizing the role of year round shelter programs to resolve homelessness, HSC has recently adapted their program at the Pau Lee Loft to pair case management with housing resources for people on a pathway to permanent housing. While resources are constrained, we are constantly looking for opportunities for additional case management funding. In the absence of sufficient funding the community has been providing volunteer resources such as the Wings and the Housing Navigator programs associated with the 180/2020 Initiative. Additional case management is supported through Community Grant programs and has been included in an application for CDBG funds submitted by the County. Finding 7: Insufficient number of staff dedicated to grant writing results in missed grant funding opportunities. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): When it was announced this spring that the Homeless Services Center (HSC) was not awarded funding through the State’s Emergency Solutions Grant program it became clear that funding and operating a multi-service program is complex and dynamic. Skilled response to varied and changing funding opportunities is a vital component to stability, and the level of staffing dedicated to fund development is determined by HSC. The HAP has been very successful in raising funds for homeless services from federal and State sources, bringing in close to $30,000,000 since 2001.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Continually rising retirement costs and obligations put funding of jurisdictions' services and projects at risk. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The County has taken significant and impactful steps that have contained, and in some cases capped, rising costs. The Grand Jury Report vastly understates the savings to the County resulting from the many changes mandated by AB340, the Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), and ignores several other County measures designed to reduce and stabilize pension and retiree healthcare costs. The Report also makes inaccurate assumptions regarding future retirement contribution levels. PEPRA-Related Savings: Pensionable Compensation Cap. The PEPRA caps pensionable salaries at 100% of the Social Security Contribution and Benefit Base for employees who participate in Social Security and at 120% of that amount for employees who do not. These caps are well below the previous IRS cap and will result in on-going long term savings. Increased Employee Contributions/Employee "Pick Up" of Employer Contributions. The Grand Jury Report ignores the PEPRA's provisions on retirement contributions by classic (existing) members. While the PEPRA only requires new employees to contribute at least 50 percent of normal cost, it sets that contribution rate as the standard expected of all employees and permits employers to unilaterally impose that contribution rate as of January 2018. The PEPRA also lets employers and employees agree to share the cost of the employer contribution, previously only allowed if tied to a past benefit enhancement. Based on these changes, the County has negotiated increased pension contributions for all employees, not just those hired after January 2013, as well as several employee "pick-ups" of part of the employer contribution. Since the implementation of the PEPRA, the County has negotiated the following contribution changes with the General Representation Unit, representing approximately 70% of the County's workforce: <math>\times</math> [2] . 4.0 Since September 2014, Miscellaneous Tier 1 and Tier 2 employees (who previously did 0 not contribute toward their retirement benefit) have contributed 3.5% toward retirement. Employees in Tiers 1 and 2 of the County Peace Officer plan increased their contribution to 9.5% (a 0.5% increase). This increase constituted an employee "pick-up" toward the employer contribution, and would not have previously been allowed. In September 2015, employees in Miscellaneous Tiers 1 and 2 will double their 0 retirement contribution to 7%, while County Peace Officers in Tiers 1 and 2 will increase their contribution to 10%. The added 0.5% County Peace Officer contribution is a further employee pick up of the employer contribution, for a total employee pick up of 1%. In September 2015, Miscellaneous Tier 3 employees will increase their retirement 0 contribution from 6.25% (50 percent of normal cost) to 7%. The additional .75% is an employee "pick up" toward the cost of the employer contribution. Similar changes negotiated with most other bargaining units have already significantly reduced the County's pension contributions, and will lead to long-term savings. Effective Date of PEPRA Impacts & Timing of PEPRA Savings. The Report erroneously states, "These new impacts of PEPRA go into effect FY 2015/16." All PEPRA provisions listed in the Report went into effect in January 2013 and none are scheduled to go into effect during FY 2015/16. The Report's statement that "the real savings of PEPRA will come many years in the future as the percentage of PEPRA employees increases" underestimates the savings the County has already realized from PEPRA-related changes, such as increased employee pension contributions and employee pick-ups of a portion of the employer contribution. Further, the Report assumes that very few current County employees are in one of the lower retirement tiers. In fact, just two years into PEPRA, already 20 percent of County employees are subject to Tier 2 or Tier 3 retirement benefits. Non-PEPRA-Related Cost-Saving Measures: Lower Pension Tier for all Employees. The Report notes that prior to the implementation of the PEPRA the County adopted a second retirement tier for Safety (aka County Peace Officer) and Sheriff's Safety employees with benefits based on the average of the highest three consecutive years' salaries (FAE3), rather than the single highest year (FAE1), as benefit levels were previously calculated. However, the Report fails to mention that for the Miscellaneous Plan, which accounts for 85 percent of County employees, a second tier also went into effect in December 2012 for all new Miscellaneous employees. Miscellaneous Tier 2 employees do not qualify for full retirement until age 60 (compared to age 55 for Tier 1 employees), and their retirement benefit is based on FAE3, rather than FAE1 like their Tier 1 colleagues. Under the PEPRA, a person who became a member of CalPERS or a reciprocal retirement program before January 1, 2013 and subsequently joins a different CalPERS agency with less than a six month break in service is a "classic" employee who qualifies for the retirement benefit that was in effect at the new agency on December 31, 2012. The December 2012 implementation of a lower tier of benefits for Miscellaneous employees precludes "classic" employees from other CalPERS or reciprocal agencies from qualifying for Tier 1 benefits at the County of Santa Cruz. Savings from the implementation of the Tier 2 benefit formula for all bargaining units is anticipated to total $9.7 million in the first ten years, $37 million over 20 years, and $93.5 million over 30 years. Reduced Retiree Healthcare Costs through Structural Reform. The County provides pay-as- you-go health benefits to retirees. The value of benefits to be paid in the future and how much of that value remains unfunded is known as the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL). Since 2007, the County has implemented several structural changes that have reduced both the pay-as-you-go costs and the UAAL: Cafeteria plan and cap on retiree health benefits. The 2007-08 implementation of a 0 cafeteria plan and cap on retiree health benefits reduced the UAAL from $216 million, in January 2007, to $181.5 million, by January 2009. Retiree health longevity schedule. In January 2012 the County implemented a retiree 0 health longevity schedule that links the level of benefits to years of County service and age at retirement. Before then, the County's retiree medical benefit for most employees was $507/month for single, $557 with one dependent, and $613 with more than one dependent. As of 2012, retirees with five or fewer years of service qualify for only the "PEMHCA minimum," which is currently $112/month. Depending on years of County service and age at retirement, retirees may receive up to a "cap" of $507/month single or $557/month with any number of dependents. Reduced healthcare contributions to Medicare-eligible retirees. In 2012, the County 0 reduced its contributions when retirees attain Medicare eligibility and qualify for lower cost health premiums. Even if a person qualifies for the maximum $507/month contribution based on years of service and age at retirement, when that person qualifies for Medicare, the County's contribution is reduced by 25% to $380/month. As a result of these structural reforms, the County's pay-as-you-go benefit payments, estimated in 2009 to hit $12.5 million by 2019, are now projected to reach only $7 million by then and the UAAL has been reduced by an additional $36.5 million to $145 million. Inaccurate Assumptions Regarding Future Retirement Contribution Levels. The Grand Jury indicated that, "Employer and employee contribution levels are expected to continue to increase unless exceptional investment returns are experienced..." and footnotes this comment to a November 2014 CaIPERS report. The report referenced in the footnote actually reads, "Contribution rates are expected to remain high for an extended period unless there is a period of exceptional returns in the markets." In this context, there is a notable difference between the words "remaining high" and "increasing." The rates will remain high for approximately four to five years because PERS has recently implemented conservative demographic, amortization, and investment assumptions designed to complement the PEPRA's structural benefit reductions. After the initial phase-in period, rates are expected to decline.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To prevent reductions in public services, each of the six public agencies studied in this report should increase, and make public, their efforts to manage and reduce retirement costs and obligations. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Beginning in 2007, with the anticipated implementation of GASB45, the County took aggressive steps to manage rising costs associated with pension and retiree health benefits. Since the implementation of SB1129, all steps taken to reduce obligations, including estimates of the anticipated savings, have been taken to the Board in open session, and placed on the regular agenda, affording ample opportunity for review and input by the public.
F2:
A clear and complete statement of the total retirement costs and obligations has not been provided in the budget narrative for either the public or elected officials. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below <b>DISAGREE</b> - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): In accordance with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, these obligations are reported in great detail in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). In the budget documents, costs are disclosed on Schedule 9 for each department under Salaries & Benefits. Pension costs are provided on the "PERS" line item; retiree health benefit costs (OPEB) are included with active employee health benefit costs in the "Employee Insurance and Benefits" line item. ¥ 30 55 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each of the six public agencies studied in this report should provide, in language understandable to the public, the totality of retirement obligations in their annual budget narratives beginning with the fiscal year 2015/16 budget. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The County will continue to adhere to the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) guidelines for reporting pension and OPEB obligations, and in accordance with GASB reports the obligations in the CAFR which is available to the public on the County's webpage under "Budget and Financial Reports." The budget documents will disclose costs on Schedule 9 for each department under Salaries & Benefits. Pension costs are provided on the "PERS" line item; retiree health benefit costs (OPEB) are included with active employee health benefit costs in the "Employee Insurance and Benefits" line item. It's anticipated that the County will begin issuing an Annual Report in FY 2015-16 and could provide some narrative of the OPEB and Pension liabilities there. <b>Recommendation 3:</b> The Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should enroll in the California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CalPERS Trust Fund) to pre-fund retiree health obligations and unfunded liabilities. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED X HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE <b>FUTURE</b> - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Staff has evaluated establishment of an Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust for the purposes of prefunding OPEB obligations. While there are numerous OPEB Trust providers, staff has met with two: CalPERS, to learn more about their CERBT, and Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS), both of which offer trusts for prefunding OPEB. At present the County General Fund does not have sufficient cash reserves to make a contribution equal to the Annual Required Contribution (ARC) as defined in the OPEB Actuarial Report; therefore initial prefunding would likely be for the annual benefit payment amount. It's anticipated that the OPEB trust's investment portfolio would generate a better rate of return than the treasury rate earnings on General Fund balances. It's anticipated that staff will be making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to establish an OPEB Trust during FY 2015-16 and initially prefund the estimated annual benefit payment amount in FY 2016-17.
F3:
Enrollment in the CalPERS Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Fund reduces employer contributions, prevents retiree health obligations from becoming a significant budget liability, and contributes to a positive credit rating. <b>AGREE</b> X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below <b>DISAGREE</b> - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Enrollment in the California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT), or any Other Post- Employment Benefits (OPEB) trust, in and of itself will not have any impact on contributions for current or future retirees. Contributions to the trust would not reduce current year benefit ("Pay- Go") costs for retired annuitants. Depending upon the total amount accumulated in the trust and the investment returns realized, reductions to the portion of the Annual Required Contribution (ARC) attributable to amortization of the unfunded liability could be achieved. Prefunding OPEB would be viewed favorably by rating agencies and could positively impact the County's long- term debt rating. If, however, the County had to borrow funds in order to pre-fund the OPEB liability, there could be negative impacts to the County's short-term debt rating which could increase the interest rate associated with the annual Tax Revenue Anticipation Note (TRAN) financing. If one-time money could be identified for funding an OPEB trust, there would be no associated negative impacts on the short-term debt rating.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Local jurisdictions have not provided adequate emergency shelter to accommodate the vast majority (80%) of the more than 3,500 total homeless persons in Santa Cruz County (using 2013 PIT data). X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The County and the four cities work together under the auspices of the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP). The HAP's strategy is to prioritize permanently ending homelessness for people experiencing it through national best practice strategies such as permanent supportive housing and homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing programs. While we believe this is the right approach to end homelessness for individuals experiencing it, we recognize the on- going need for emergency shelter and local jurisdictions have worked to fund and ensure the availability of emergency winter shelter each year in both north and South County. These programs together provide about 175 emergency shelter beds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Strategies to end homelessness for vulnerable populations are underway. These include the following: The County's Human Services Department is providing CalWorks housing support
F2:
Despite persistent unmet needs, local jurisdictions have chosen not to fund or plan to increase the number of emergency shelter beds and services. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Over the last several years there has been an increased number of emergency shelter beds and services in North County. Those projects include the Paul Lee Loft (48 beds) initiated in 2008, and the Recuperative Care Center (X beds) initiated in January 2014 serving medically vulnerable people who are homeless and being discharged from hospitals. In addition, while not the subject of this report, additional shelter beds in the Watsonville area have been or are being opened through the Pajaro Rescue Mission/Teen Challenge (X beds) and the Paget Center (X beds) serving homeless veterans, which opened in 2013. Although as a region we are prioritizing permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing and prevention, considering additional emergency and interim services is a key action strategy under All-In, the recently adopted county-wide strategic plan, which states: "Engage the community around developing additional emergency and interim services for unmet health and safety needs of persons living outdoors, including small shelters around the county, warming centers and improvements to existing shelters." (All-In ) As long as people are sleeping outside more needs to be done to identify the resources needed to end homelessness and to shelter individuals who are experiencing it. The FY 2015/16 budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors includes a new Homeless/Housing Coordination staff person. This staff position will help coordinate the implementation of All-In and it will work with the Inter-agency Staff Coordinating Group.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Strategies to end homelessness for vulnerable populations are underway. These include the following: The County's Human Services Department is providing CalWorks housing support
F3:
Reliance on the National Guard Armory with its strict rules and regulations limits the effectiveness of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Use of the National Guard Armory is provided through a "License to Use State Military Facility" between the County of Santa Cruz and the Military Department, State of California. The License makes the armory facility available for use as an Emergency Shelter nightly between the hours of 6:00 PM through 7:00 AM October 15th through April 15th except "during any period that any organization of the State Militia or of the Armed Forces of the United States is conducting drills or other military training or activity at the armory". The License also prohibits the use of intoxicating beverages and tobacco, and stipulates daily cleaning requirements. Use of the facility is in accordance with California Government Code §15301-15301.6 as an emergency response operation in order to prevent "the loss of life" of homeless persons during winter weather conditions. The State requires the operator to ensure basic safety and security. Parameters set by the State Military Department do not limit the effectiveness of the Armory; it is likely that any site used for this purpose would have many of the same limitations. The primary issues are the number of beds and the costs associated with transporting clients. Limited night time only access to shelter in a crowded facility not intended as a shelter is not a program that anyone would design to effectively end homelessness. The goal of the winter shelter program is to provide emergency night-time shelter. Cold weather emergency shelter does not solve homelessness for individuals but is a last resort humanitarian provision of shelter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Jurisdictions have been and will continue to seek to identify an alternative site to the Armory for emergency winter shelter. Considerations include neighborhood impacts and competing priorities for funding. During the next 6 months the following steps will be taken to identify an alternate site: the HAP Executive Committee will meet and will identify potential sites that include a building or buildings that could safely shelter a minimum of 75 people for emergency night time shelter, if any sites are found that appear potentially feasible, the HAP will performed a more detailed analysis and present such report to the Board of Supervisors and the relevant city councils.
F4:
The absence of a back-up plan to replace the National Guard Armory threatens the continuing existence of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): As described above, the Armory is a facility that provides emergency winter shelter. The building is owned by the State Department of the Military and access to it for cold weather shelter is dependent on the State's ability to provide staffing at the facility. While the State's ability to provide access is assessed annually, the Military Department has demonstrated a commitment to continue the program. The County and the four cities jointly provide funding to operate emergency winter shelter programs through the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP) and have demonstrated their commitment to emergency winter shelter by providing decades of funding for the programs. On multiple occasions the jurisdictions have sought to identify alternative sites for winter shelter. There are very limited sites that can serve this purpose. Potential alternative sites have been ruled out for reasons ranging from neighborhood concerns, transportation requirements, access to services required to safely run an emergency program (meals, bathrooms, showers) and cost. As stated above, emergency shelter does not end or shorten an individual's experience of homelessness and the significant reduction of homelessness (44% reduction since 2013 according to the 2015 Santa Cruz County Homeless Census and Survey) can be attributed, at least in part, to prioritizing effective programs proven to end homelessness. Programs that have proven to be most effective include permanent supportive housing, programs that prevent a person for losing their current housing, and rapid rehousing programs. Each of the jurisdictions participates in funding for programs that employ these strategies. The jurisdictions appreciate the Grand Jury's concern with the issues of homelessness and the jurisdictions working together through the HAP Executive Committee will continue to seek alternatives to the current programs to support both long-term and short-term emergency shelter options.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Jurisdictions have been and will continue to seek to identify an alternative site to the Armory for emergency winter shelter. Considerations include neighborhood impacts and competing priorities for funding. During the next 6 months the following steps will be taken to identify an alternate site: the HAP Executive Committee will meet and will identify potential sites that include a building or buildings that could safely shelter a minimum of 75 people for emergency night time shelter, if any sites are found that appear potentially feasible, the HAP will performed a more detailed analysis and present such report to the Board of Supervisors and the relevant city councils.
F5:
Insufficient emergency shelter capacity limits access to coordinated entry services for the homeless population. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Developing a coordinated entry system is a key strategy identified in All-In the county-wide strategic plan to address homelessness. A coordinated entry system streamlines and targets crisis response that quickly assess a household's needs and provides tailored resources for persons in crisis. Coordinated entry is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Continua of Care under the HEARTH Act. The HAP is in the process of developing and identifying funding to implement such a system. The essential premise of a coordinated entry system is to streamline access to services so that there is no "wrong door" for entry to services. While we agree with the Grand Jury's assessment that emergency shelter is a potential point for a homeless person to access a coordinated entry system, it is not the only access point for services and we are striving to provide a streamlined approach to access homeless services. We fully intend to have all County and City funded emergency shelters participate in the coordinated entry system.
F6:
Insufficient numbers of personnel and case managers at the emergency shelters limit the services that can be provided to homeless individuals. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): There is no question that case management services are a key component to end homelessness for many individuals. This need is recognized by local nonprofit agencies, jurisdictions, the Homeless Action Partnership and Smart Solutions to Homelessness. Case management support linked with access to housing is the solution to homelessness for a significant share of the people experiencing it and there are shelter programs focused specifically on pairing emergency shelter to case management to lead to permanent housing. Services that are offered at the Armory are limited to those required to operate a safe cold weather shelter. Homeless individuals can and do form relationships and build trust with staff with the Homeless Services Center, the program operator, but case management is not specifically part of the program. Case management services provide more value and there is a larger need for these services for people who are on a path to permanent housing. Recognizing the role of year round shelter programs to resolve homelessness, HSC has recently adapted their program at the Pau Lee Loft to pair case management with housing resources for people on a pathway to permanent housing. While resources are constrained, we are constantly looking for opportunities for additional case management funding. In the absence of sufficient funding the community has been providing volunteer resources such as the Wings and the Housing Navigator programs associated with the 180/2020 Initiative. Additional case management is supported through Community Grant programs and has been included in an application for CDBG funds submitted by the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate more funds for additional case managers for the local emergency shelters. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Additional funding for case management has been a priority of both local jurisdictions and nonprofit agencies. Funding has been provided by County Human Services CHAMP program, identified above, HSC has been awarded HUD funds through the HAP to provide case management and permanent housing for chronically homeless disabled individuals, a County application for CDBG funds has been submitted that, if successful, would provide three additional case managers for chronically homeless and medically vulnerable people. In addition, case management positions have been funded through Supportive Services for Veteran Families grants and the HUD VA Supportive Housing (VASH) program. All jurisdictions have adopted All-In and are coordinating funding efforts for implementation based upon its principles.
F7:
Insufficient number of staff dedicated to grant writing results in missed grant funding opportunities. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The HAP has been very successful in raising funds for homeless services from federal and State sources, bringing in close to $30,000,000 since 2001.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate additional staff to seek more grant funding for emergency shelters. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The County's Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget includes funding for a full time Homeless Coordinator working out of the County Administrative Office. The HAP is providing funding to the Homeless Services Center for technical assistance to support the organization's competition for future State Emergency Solutions Grant program funding. 176.7
F28:
As long as people are sleeping outside more needs to be done to identify the resources needed to end homelessness and to shelter individuals who are experiencing it. The FY 2015/16 budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors includes a new Homeless/Housing Coordination staff person. This staff position will help coordinate the implementation of All-In and it will work with the Inter-agency Staff Coordinating Group. Finding 3: Reliance on the National Guard Armory with its strict rules and regulations limits the effectiveness of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Use of the National Guard Armory is provided through a "License to Use State Military Facility" between the County of Santa Cruz and the Military Department, State of California. The License makes the armory facility available for use as an Emergency Shelter nightly between the hours of 6:00 PM through 7:00 AM October 15th through April 15th except "during any period that any organization of the State Militia or of the Armed Forces of the United States is conducting drills or other military training or activity at the armory". The License also prohibits the use of intoxicating beverages and tobacco, and stipulates daily cleaning requirements. Use of the facility is in accordance with California Government Code §15301-15301.6 as an emergency response operation in order to prevent "the loss of life" of homeless persons during winter weather conditions. The State requires the operator to ensure basic safety and security. Parameters set by the State Military Department do not limit the effectiveness of the Armory; it is likely that any site used for this purpose would have many of the same limitations. The primary issues are the number of beds and the costs associated with transporting clients. Limited night time only access to shelter in a crowded facility not intended as a shelter is not a program that anyone would design to effectively end homelessness. The goal of the winter shelter program is to provide emergency night-time shelter. Cold weather emergency shelter does not solve homelessness for individuals but is a last resort humanitarian provision of shelter. Finding 4: The absence of a back-up plan to replace the National Guard Armory threatens the continuing existence of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): As described above, the Armory is a facility that provides emergency winter shelter. The building is owned by the State Department of the Military and access to it for cold weather shelter is dependent on the State's ability to provide staffing at the facility. While the State's ability to provide access is assessed annually, the Military Department has demonstrated a commitment to continue the program. The County and the four cities jointly provide funding to operate emergency winter shelter programs through the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP) and have demonstrated their commitment to emergency winter shelter by providing decades of funding for the programs. On multiple occasions the jurisdictions have sought to identify alternative sites for winter shelter. There are very limited sites that can serve this purpose. Potential alternative sites have been ruled out for reasons ranging from neighborhood concerns, transportation requirements, access to services required to safely run an emergency program (meals, bathrooms, showers) and cost. As stated above, emergency shelter does not end or shorten an individual's experience of homelessness and the significant reduction of homelessness (44% reduction since 2013 according to the 2015 Santa Cruz County Homeless Census and Survey) can be attributed, at least in part, to prioritizing effective programs proven to end homelessness. Programs that have proven to be most effective include permanent supportive housing, programs that prevent a person for losing their current housing, and rapid rehousing programs. Each of the jurisdictions participates in funding for programs that employ these strategies. The jurisdictions appreciate the Grand Jury's concern with the issues of homelessness and the jurisdictions working together through the HAP Executive Committee will continue to seek alternatives to the current programs to support both long-term and short-term emergency shelter options. Finding 5: Insufficient emergency shelter capacity limits access to coordinated entry services for the homeless population. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Developing a coordinated entry system is a key strategy identified in All-In the county-wide strategic plan to address homelessness. A coordinated entry system streamlines and targets crisis response that quickly assess a household's needs and provides tailored resources for persons in crisis. Coordinated entry is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Continua of Care under the HEARTH Act. The HAP is in the process of developing and identifying funding to implement such a system. The essential premise of a coordinated entry system is to streamline access to services so that there is no "wrong door" for entry to services. While we agree with the Grand Jury's assessment that emergency shelter is a potential point for a homeless person to access a coordinated entry system, it is not the only access point for services and we are striving to provide a streamlined approach to access homeless services. We fully intend to have all County and City funded emergency shelters participate in the coordinated entry system. Finding 6: Insufficient numbers of personnel and case managers at the emergency shelters limit the services that can be provided to homeless individuals. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): There is no question that case management services are a key component to end homelessness for many individuals. This need is recognized by local nonprofit agencies, jurisdictions, the Homeless Action Partnership and Smart Solutions to Homelessness. Case management support linked with access to housing is the solution to homelessness for a significant share of the people experiencing it and there are shelter programs focused specifically on pairing emergency shelter to case management to lead to permanent housing. Services that are offered at the Armory are limited to those required to operate a safe cold weather shelter. Homeless individuals can and do form relationships and build trust with staff with the Homeless Services Center, the program operator, but case management is not specifically part of the program. Case management services provide more value and there is a larger need for these services for people who are on a path to permanent housing. Recognizing the role of year round shelter programs to resolve homelessness, HSC has recently adapted their program at the Pau Lee Loft to pair case management with housing resources for people on a pathway to permanent housing. While resources are constrained, we are constantly looking for opportunities for additional case management funding. In the absence of sufficient funding the community has been providing volunteer resources such as the Wings and the Housing Navigator programs associated with the 180/2020 Initiative. Additional case management is supported through Community Grant programs and has been included in an application for CDBG funds submitted by the County. Finding 7: Insufficient number of staff dedicated to grant writing results in missed grant funding opportunities. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The HAP has been very successful in raising funds for homeless services from federal and State sources, bringing in close to $30,000,000 since 2001.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Continually rising retirement costs and obligations put funding of jurisdictions' services and projects at risk. X AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The City recognizes the risk rising costs of retirement obligations in the short term and in the long term. Budget and Financial presentations made as part of Public Hearings to the City Council each budget year have emphasized this issue as one which needs addressing and planning into the future. Examples of these presentations can be found in the City’s website. February 10, 2015, Audited Statements Financial Presentation to City Council (see pages 11 and 12 of this document). In addition, the full audited financial report was provided to the City Council as part of that public hearing. The financial audit contains information related to the unfunded liability and its status on pages 82 through 84. The document was also made available to the public for review. http://cityofwatsonville.org/download/City_Council/City_Council_Documents/2015/021015/It em%206.2a%20Mid%20Year%202014-15%20Budget%20Report.pdf May 26, 2015, Budget Study Session Presented to City Council (refer to pages 7 and 8 of the report). The report highlights the challenge to continue funding continually rising retirement costs and obligations in the current year and future years. http://cityofwatsonville.org/download/City_Council/City_Council_Documents/2015/052615/It em%208.3%20Proposed%20Budget%202015-16%20&%202016-17%20Report.pdf June 9, 2015, Budget Public Hearing conducted by the City Council (refer to pages 9 and 10 of the report). The report highlights the challenge to continue funding continually rising retirement costs and obligations in the current year and future years. http://cityofwatsonville.org/download/City_Council/City_Council_Documents/2015/060915/It em%206.2a%20Budget%20Summary%20Report.pdf
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To prevent reductions in public services, each of the six public agencies studied in this report should increase, and make public, their efforts to manage and reduce retirement costs and obligations. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED X HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The City recognizes the risk rising costs of retirement obligations in the short term and in the long term. Accordingly, the City has presented this information in public meetings in various occasions each year. Examples of these presentations can be found in the City’s website. February 10, 2015, Audited Statements Financial Presentation to City Council (see pages 11 and 12 of this document). In addition, the full audited financial report was provided to the City Council as part of that public hearing. The financial audit contains information related to the unfunded liability and its status on pages 82 through 84. The document was also made available to the public for review. http://cityofwatsonville.org/download/City_Council/City_Council_Documents/2015/021015/It em%206.2a%20Mid%20Year%202014-15%20Budget%20Report.pdf May 26, 2015, Budget Study Session Presented to City Council (refer to pages 7 and 8 of the report). The report highlights the challenge to continue funding continually rising retirement costs and obligations in the current year and future years. http://cityofwatsonville.org/download/City_Council/City_Council_Documents/2015/052615/It em%208.3%20Proposed%20Budget%202015-16%20&%202016-17%20Report.pdf June 9, 2015, Budget Public Hearing conducted by the City Council (refer to pages 9 and 10 of the report). The report highlights the challenge to continue funding continually rising retirement costs and obligations in the current year and future years. http://cityofwatsonville.org/download/City_Council/City_Council_Documents/2015/060915/It em%206.2a%20Budget%20Summary%20Report.pdf The City will enhance what is already being presented to make a more complete statement about the retirement costs and obligations of the City. This enhanced reporting will be available with the publication of the FY 2015-16 budget document.
F2:
A clear and complete statement of the total retirement costs and obligations has not been provided in the budget narrative for either the public or elected officials. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Budget and Financial presentations made as part of Public Hearings to the City Council each budget year have emphasized this issue as one which needs addressing and planning into the future. Examples of these presentations can be found in the City’s website. February 10, 2015, Audited Statements Financial Presentation to City Council (see pages 11 and 12 of this document). In addition, the full audited financial report was provided to the City Council as part of that public hearing. The financial audit contains information related to the unfunded liability and its status on pages 82 through 84. The document was also made available to the public for review. http://cityofwatsonville.org/download/City_Council/City_Council_Documents/2015/021015/It em%206.2a%20Mid%20Year%202014-15%20Budget%20Report.pdf May 26, 2015, Budget Study Session Presented to City Council (refer to pages 7 and 8 of the report). The report highlights the challenge to continue funding continually rising retirement costs and obligations in the current year and future years. http://cityofwatsonville.org/download/City_Council/City_Council_Documents/2015/052615/It em%208.3%20Proposed%20Budget%202015-16%20&%202016-17%20Report.pdf June 9, 2015, Budget Public Hearing conducted by the City Council (refer to pages 9 and 10 of the report). The report highlights the challenge to continue funding continually rising retirement costs and obligations in the current year and future years. http://cityofwatsonville.org/download/City_Council/City_Council_Documents/2015/060915/It em%206.2a%20Budget%20Summary%20Report.pdf The City will enhance what is already being presented to make a more complete statement about the retirement costs and obligations of the City.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each of the six public agencies studied in this report should provide, in language understandable to the public, the totality of retirement obligations in their annual budget narratives beginning with the fiscal year 2015/16 budget. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED X HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The City will enhance what is already being presented to make a more complete statement about the retirement costs and obligations of the City. This enhanced reporting will be available with the publication of the FY 2015-16 budget document.
F3:
Enrollment in the CalPERS Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Fund reduces employer contributions, prevents retiree health obligations from becoming a significant budget liability, and contributes to a positive credit rating. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The California Employers' Benefit Trust (CERBT) Fund is a Section 115 trust fund dedicated to prefunding Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) for all eligible California public agencies. While the City of Watsonville has reported a net OPEB obligation of $4.5 million for fiscal year ending 06/30/2014; this liability will be significantly reduced in FY 2014-15 and future years due to changes made by the City to its health plan and how it segregates the costs and premiums associated with retirees. The City offers employees who have retired from service the option to continue receiving health care benefits at their own cost until age sixty-five. For the retiree to be fully eligible to participate in the plan offered by the City of Watsonville, the employee must be at least 50 years of age and have at least five years of service. Retirees pay for their benefit at 105% of the active per-capita health costs, as reset by the administrator every January 1st. In the past the City self-funded this plan by paying for the actual costs of claims received under the plan. Effective July 1, 2013; the City migrated to a pooled plan which limits the liability to the City to the monthly premium paid for each participating member of the City’s plan. This limits the current and future year obligations of the City for active employees and helps more closely align the cost paid for health care costs for retirees each fiscal year and their employee paid premiums. This shift will result in a significant reduction in the OPEB liability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should enroll in the California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CalPERS Trust Fund) to pre-fund retiree health obligations and unfunded liabilities. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The California Employers' Benefit Trust (CERBT) Fund is a Section 115 trust fund dedicated to prefunding Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) for all eligible California public agencies. While the City of Watsonville has reported a net OPEB obligation of $4.5 million for fiscal year ending 06/30/2014; this liability will be significantly reduced in FY 2014-15 and future years due to changes made by the City to its health plan and how it segregates the costs and premiums associated with retirees. The City offers employees who have retired from service the option to continue receiving health care benefits at their own cost until age sixty-five. For the retiree to be fully eligible to participate in the plan offered by the City of Watsonville, the employee must be at least 50 years of age and have at least five years of service. Retirees pay for their benefit at 105% of the active per-capita health costs, as reset by the administrator every January 1st. In the past the City self-funded this plan by paying for the actual costs of claims received under the plan. Effective July 1, 2013; the City migrated to a pooled plan which limits the liability to the City to the monthly premium paid for each participating member of the City’s plan. This limits the current and future year obligations of the City for active employees and helps more closely align the cost paid for health care costs for retirees each fiscal year and their employee paid premiums. This shift will result in a significant reduction in the OPEB liability.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Compostable organic waste, which makes up approximately one third of municipal solid waste, must be diverted in order to extend the life of Santa Cruz County landfills and meet state mandates, specifically AB 1826. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In order to comply with AB 1826 mandates, the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should join with Santa Cruz County to form a regional agency to develop a large-scale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: As stated in Finding 2, the City of Scotts Valley contracts with Green Waste Recovery which could provide this service. An analysis of whether to contract directly with Green Waste Recovery or join a regional agency to develop an organics recycling system needs to be analyzed. This will be done prior to January 1, 2016, the implementation date of AB 1826.
F2:
Unless Santa Cruz County and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola, Scotts Valley and Watsonville invest politically and financially in large-scale organics recycling systems, they will be out of compliance with AB 1826 by the year 2020 or sooner. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below x DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The City of Scotts Valley contracts with Green Waste Recovery for its refuse, recycling, and yard waste collection services. Green Waste Recovery has the capabilities of collecting and properly disposing of the organic waste as required by AB 1826. If Scotts Valley were to contract for this service, the City would not need to invest in a large-scale organics recycling system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The current pilot program for composting food waste from restaurants and other large institutions in Capitola and Santa Cruz County should be expanded to serve other businesses in the AB 1826 first and second tiers throughout Santa Cruz County, including Scotts Valley and Watsonville, until a regional facility can be developed. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: This is not the only option for the City of Scotts Valley. As stated in Recommendation 1, Scotts Valley has an option of contracting directly with Green Waste Recovery for these services. These two options will need to be analyzed prior to January 1, 2016, the implementation date of AB 1826.
F3:
Santa Cruz County and the cities of Capitola, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville all passed resolutions in 2005 recommending a regional composting facility, but as of 2015, no facility has been constructed, nor is there a completed plan to do so. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
After selection of a composting contractor and technology by the Local Task Force, Santa Cruz County and the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should create a coordinated outreach program to inform businesses and the public about the benefits and requirements of the new organics recycling program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: A coordinated effort may or may not work if different programs are provided by the various jurisdictions. Scotts Valley may contract with Green Waste Recovery and the other jurisdictions may develop their own program. To the extent that information is consistent between the programs, an outreach program could be done. This determination will need to be accomplished once the programs are established, no later than January 1, the implementation date of AB 1826.
F5:
Unless the Monterey Regional Waste Management District decides to expand its current organic composting facility, Santa Cruz County jurisdictions cannot rely on it as a long-term solution for their organic waste recycling needs. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below x DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The Monterey Regional Waste Management District (District) has three different permitted compost projects in operation on site. In checking with the District, they provided the following list of their projects and their capacity status. 1. 5,000 ton per year Anaerobic Digestion Pilot Project 2. 10 permitted acres with a 72,000 cubic yard material allowance. 3. 60 permitted acres with a 500 ton per day maximum permitted tonnage The status of these 3 projects is as follows: 1. 5,000 ton per year Anaerobic Digestion Pilot Project is operating at 5,000 ton per year capacity however we have the ability to utilize additional food scraps in the raw material feedstock and reduce the quantity of green waste processed. We estimate this project can accept another 500 tons per year of food scraps. 2. We are presently utilizing less than 10,000 cubic yards of material on this site with more than 60,000 cubic yards of surplus capacity or approximately 45,000 tons per year (at 1.33 cubic yards food waste/ton). 3. On this our largest permitted compost parcel, 305 tons per day of capacity is being utilized with a surplus capacity of 195 tons per day which is in excess of 65,000 tons annually. The District predicts the life span at this time to exceed 100 years. Based on this information, Santa Cruz County jurisdictions can rely on the District as a long-term solution for their organic waste recycling needs.
F6:
Unless the cities of Watsonville and Scotts Valley develop organic waste recycling programs, neither city will be in compliance with AB 1826 by January 1, 2016. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): If by “develop” it is meant to either come up with our own organic waste recycling program or contract with a provider such as Green Waste Recovery, then this is true.
F7:
Rules about what can be put in the “green cart” are inconsistent and not well understood by the general public. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): In the Yellow Pages there is a six page Recycle Guide. In that guide it states all the same items that can go into the “green cart” for Capitola, Scotts Valley, and the unincorporated County, as they are all served by the same company, Green Waste Recovery. That same guide is located on the City of Scotts Valley web site. Scotts Valley believes it is not so much that the rules are inconsistent, as they are the same in these three jurisdictions, but that the public is not aware of the rules, despite the information provided regarding them.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
Curbside “green carts” and bins should be clearly labeled to instruct residential and commercial customers specifying what materials are acceptable. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Scotts Valley would want to check with Green Waste Recovery as to their thoughts on the best way to inform the public regarding what can be put into “green carts.” This will be done within the next six months.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Continually rising retirement costs and obligations put funding of jurisdictions' services and projects at risk. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Rising retirement costs do put pressure on the budget, but it is not the only factor. Personnel costs in general are 80% of the City’s General Fund budget. Retirement costs are a part (13%) of that overall cost. The City needs to stay competitive with salaries to keep qualified employees. Salaries are a much larger part of the budget at 42%. The economy is another large factor to having the resources to provide services. The City has endured two economic downturns in the last 10 years. These were prior to the latest increase in retirement costs. The City needed to take measures during those time periods to maintain its budget. The City will continue to take necessary steps in the future due to any factors affecting its budget.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To prevent reductions in public services, each of the six public agencies studied in this report should increase, and make public, their efforts to manage and reduce retirement costs and obligations. x HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED _ HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: As discussed above in Finding 1, retirement costs are not the only factor in the budget. Competitive salaries and the economy also play a part in the development of a balanced budget. Most recently, the City did have an agenda item on its August 5 Council meeting to discuss the City’s structural deficit in general. The City plans to have further meetings on this subject in the future. Further back, the City has discussed the actions it has taken to manage the City’s budget during its budget discussion Council meetings.
F2:
A clear and complete statement of the total retirement costs and obligations has not been provided in the budget narrative for either the public or elected officials. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The City does provide more information in its annual financial statements as required disclosures directed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. The budget provides budgeted line items for each department, but also provides a General Fund recap of total amounts for each budget line item, including retirement. The budget is primarily a document for that fiscal year’s budgeted revenues and expenditures, but information regarding future costs could be incorporated into the narratives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each of the six public agencies studied in this report should provide, in language understandable to the public, the totality of retirement obligations in their annual budget narratives beginning with the fiscal year 2015/16 budget. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED x HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The budget document for the 2015-16 fiscal year had already been prepared by the time this Grand Jury report was received by the City. More information will be provided in next year’s budget document. The City does provide information on its retirement plan and retiree medical plan in its annual financial statements. The annual financial statements are normally available in December after the June 30 fiscal year end date. The information provided is according to the disclosure requirements of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
F3:
Enrollment in the CalPERS Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Fund reduces employer contributions, prevents retiree health obligations from becoming a significant budget liability, and contributes to a positive credit rating. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Enrollment is only part of the solution. There are no mandatory contributions for this Trust Fund. Contributions can be made as the City wants or has the resources to do so. Having sufficient funds to invest in the Trust Fund is the main issue. This relates back to Finding #1 above regarding budget impacts on the City and having sufficient funds to meet the various competing needs in the budget. Employer contributions are reduced through investment earnings from City funds invested in the Trust Fund. Without sufficient resources to invest, any meaningful reduction in employer contributions will not happen. The same holds true for preventing the retiree health obligations from becoming a significant budget liability and contributing to a positive credit rating.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should enroll in the California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CalPERS Trust Fund) to pre-fund retiree health obligations and unfunded liabilities. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED x HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: At the City Council’s August 5, 2015, meeting, Council decided that the City should set aside reserves for retiree medical obligations. The City will enroll in the CalPERS Trust Fund by the end of the calendar year and will fund it in accordance with direction from Council.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Compostable organic waste, which makes up approximately one third of municipal solid waste, must be diverted in order to extend the life of Santa Cruz County landfills and meet state mandates, specifically AB 1826. X AGREE _ PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below ___ DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"):
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In order to comply with AB 1826 mandates, the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should join with Santa Cruz County to form a regional agency to develop a large-scale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) ___ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: While there may be efficiencies resulting from all the jurisdictions working together on organics recycling, one or more may decide to pursue internal solutions to meet the requirements of the law. Each jurisdiction has different refuse and recycling capabilities, infrastructure and facilities, as well as the cost recovery revenues that pay for these services. In addition, the number of businesses that will ultimately fall under the requirements of the law vary greatly by jurisdiction (for example Santa Cruz County's unincorporated area versus the City of Santa Cruz). Ultimately each jurisdiction will make its own decisions on what will be the most efficient and cost effective route for achieving compliance with the law. The City will continue to work cooperatively with the other jurisdictions on these issues as we collectively evaluate how to best implement compliance practices and provide the most cost- effective solution for our rate payers.
F2:
Unless Santa Cruz County and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola, Scotts Valley and Watsonville invest politically and financially in large-scale organics recycling systems, they will be out of compliance with AB 1826 by the year 2020 or sooner. <b>AGREE</b> X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): While a large-scale organics recycling system is one possible solution, the County or any of the cities could opt to create their own, independent smaller-scale facilities serving just their jurisdiction and its businesses that would fall under AB 1826. 80 100
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The current pilot program for composting food waste from restaurants and other large institutions in Capitola and Santa Cruz County should be expanded to serve other businesses in the AB 1826 first and second tiers throughout Santa Cruz County, including Scotts Valley and Watsonville, until a regional facility can be developed. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The City is responding "Requires Further Analysis", however please note that the recommendation pertains to a program in which the City of Santa Cruz is not a participant, and the recommendation does not mention the City of Santa Cruz specifically. The City of Santa Cruz, however, is in the development phase of a small scale food waste pilot program incorporating a food waste to energy component at the Wastewater Treatment Facility and a composting component. Both are still in the design and development phase.
F5:
Unless the Monterey Regional Waste Management District decides to expand its current organic composting facility, Santa Cruz County jurisdictions cannot rely on it as a long-term solution for their organic waste recycling needs. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"):
F7:
Rules about what can be put in the "green cart" are inconsistent and not well understood by the general public. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Rules about what can be put in a green cart may be inconsistent from one jurisdiction to another due to their different organics waste processing systems, however, rules about what can be put in the City of Santa Cruz's green carts have been consistent for the last several years. The City's green carts have stickers on the carts defining what may and may not be placed in the carts. In addition, the City's Waste Reduction Program regularly includes information about what can be put in green cans in public mailers, bills and other outreach. Finally, if a resident "contaminates" their green cart with non-permissible materials, they will get a violation notice letting them know what was put in the cart that was non-permissible. Some confusion for green cart users statewide may be due to the nature of the state's green waste laws. For example, green waste could contain trimmings from an overgrown tomato bush or apple tree, complete with the fruit that came with the tree as this would be legitimate green waste. However, an apple core or leftover tomato from the refrigerator, for example, would be considered food waste by the State inspector, and therefore is non-permissible.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Continually rising retirement costs and obligations put funding of jurisdictions' services and projects at risk. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"):
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To prevent reductions in public services, each of the six public agencies studied in this report should increase, and make public, their efforts to manage and reduce retirement costs and obligations. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The City continues with a long-term strategy to increase its efforts to manage and reduce retirement costs and has made some efforts in highlighting those efforts. A summary of the major efforts include: 1) Permanent reduction in across-the-board compensation to all employees of at least 10% which reduced the escalation of future retirement liabilities. 2) Established a cap on Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) such that there is a maximum hard-dollar cost and that retirees become ineligible upon reaching Medicare eligibility age (currently 65). 3) Issued Pension Obligation Bonds that will be paid off in 2022. They immediately reduced the City's interest costs on this Pension debt from the then 7.75% rate. Current estimated, annual savings are $190,000, based on the recently lowered 7.50% PERS discount rate. 4) In advance of statewide reform (PEPRA), proactively implemented a second tier, lower benefited pension system for all newly hired employees. For public safety employees, the plan became effective September 2011 and for all other employees, March 2012. Unlike PEPRA, that became effective June 2013, the City's second tier does not exempt any new hires from the lower benefited plan (PEPRA allows new hires from other CalPERS or similar systems to start with the original, higher cost retirement system). 5) Established in June 2013 a $2.1 million future obligation reserve to be converted into allocations for future liabilities, including establishment of a material retiree benefit trust to pre-fund future pension liabilities. 6) Implemented an annual process such that when it is financial advantageous the City makes a lump-sum prepayment to CalPERS to lower retirement costs. Continued to obtain larger cost sharing by employees of their CalPERS retirement costs. 8) Continued through recent negotiations to restrict any proposals that would directly grow employee future retirement costs. The elements of this strategy, individually and on the aggregate have been discussed in public, at City Council meetings when Council action was taken to adopt them.
F2:
A clear and complete statement of the total retirement costs and obligations has not been provided in the budget narrative for either the public or elected officials. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Already contained in the May 12, 2015 Proposed Fiscal Year 2015 Budget was a description of the total unfunded retiree obligations (see the Finance Director's Overview within the Budget in Brief summary, attached). This discussion portrayed the total obligations as compared to funding levels and detailed the benefit levels provided for retiree health. An additional financial schedule was added to the Adopted (final) Fiscal Year 2015 Budget that provides the details of the total annual costs and total obligation for retiree obligations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each of the six public agencies studied in this report should provide, in language understandable to the public, the totality of retirement obligations in their annual budget narratives beginning with the fiscal year 2015/16 budget. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) ___ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Please see the response to Finding 2. In addition, we have historically included similar schedules detailing total retiree obligations, including a description of the benefit levels, in our audited, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) (attached).
F3:
Enrollment in the CalPERS Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Fund reduces employer contributions, prevents retiree health obligations from becoming a significant budget liability, and contributes to a positive credit rating. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): We agree that enrollment in Retiree Benefit Trust Funds is a valuable and essential tool for government agencies to dedicate general funding for the restricted purpose of offsetting future retiree liabilities. However, there are other options than CalPERS that can have lower entry and maintenance costs. Regarding lowering employer contributions, the City would not see a reduction in employer contributions to CalPERS but rather would contribute additional general purpose funding towards unfunded obligations. Finally, without a significant funding strategy, a Trust will have a marginal impact to mitigate future liabilities or enhance the City's credit rating.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should enroll in the California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CalPERS Trust Fund) to pre-fund retiree health obligations and unfunded liabilities. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED \overline{\boldsymbol{\chi}} has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: As a continuation of the development of our $2.1 million unfunded obligations reserve, we will be building into our FY2017 budget development (1) a funding mechanism to build our reserve; (2) the establishment of a Retiree Trust with a provider yet to be determined (as stated in response to Finding #3, there are providers other than CalPERS to be considered); and (3) the process by which contributions are made to the Trust. FY 2016 Proposed Budget in Brief Finance Director's Overview Contained within the FY 2016 Proposed Budget are new schedules, expanded summaries and document changes meant to provide greater transparency and easier usability. Some of the notable changes are: Created a new tab section for Reorganized the Capital this Budget in Brief to allow for Improvement Program to (1) quicker, easier reference move to the intro the Climate Action and Unfunded project
R8:
Continued through recent negotiations to restrict any proposals that would directly grow employee future retirement costs. The elements of this strategy, individually and on the aggregate have been discussed in public, at City Council meetings when Council action was taken to adopt them. Recommendation 2: Each of the six public agencies studied in this report should provide, in language understandable to the public, the totality of retirement obligations in their annual budget narratives beginning with the fiscal year 2015/16 budget. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) ___ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Please see the response to Finding 2. In addition, we have historically included similar schedules detailing total retiree obligations, including a description of the benefit levels, in our audited, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) (attached). Recommendation 3: The Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should enroll in the California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CalPERS Trust Fund) to pre-fund retiree health obligations and unfunded liabilities. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED \overline{\boldsymbol{\chi}} has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: As a continuation of the development of our $2.1 million unfunded obligations reserve, we will be building into our FY2017 budget development (1) a funding mechanism to build our reserve; (2) the establishment of a Retiree Trust with a provider yet to be determined (as stated in response to Finding #3, there are providers other than CalPERS to be considered); and (3) the process by which contributions are made to the Trust. FY 2016 Proposed Budget in Brief Finance Director's Overview Contained within the FY 2016 Proposed Budget are new schedules, expanded summaries and document changes meant to provide greater transparency and easier usability. Some of the notable changes are: Created a new tab section for Reorganized the Capital this Budget in Brief to allow for Improvement Program to (1) quicker, easier reference move to the intro the Climate Action and Unfunded project
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
In advance of statewide reform (PEPRA), proactively implemented a second tier, lower benefited pension system for all newly hired employees. For public safety employees, the plan became effective September 2011 and for all other employees, March 2012. Unlike PEPRA, that became effective June 2013, the City's second tier does not exempt any new hires from the lower benefited plan (PEPRA allows new hires from other CalPERS or similar systems to start with the original, higher cost retirement system).
R5:
Established in June 2013 a $2.1 million future obligation reserve to be converted into allocations for future liabilities, including establishment of a material retiree benefit trust to pre-fund future pension liabilities.
R6:
Implemented an annual process such that when it is financial advantageous the City makes a lump-sum prepayment to CalPERS to lower retirement costs. Continued to obtain larger cost sharing by employees of their CalPERS retirement costs.
R9:
RETIREMENT PLANS A. Pension Plan Plan Description The City contributes to the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS); an agent multiple-employer defined benefit pension plan. The Police and Fire Safety plans are required to participate in a risk pool since there were less than 100 active members in at least one valuation since June 30, 2003. PERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. PERS acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities within the State of California. Benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by State statute and City ordinance. Copies of PERS' Annual Financial Report may be obtained from their Executive Office located at 400 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Funding Policy The actuarial methods and assumptions used are those adopted by the CalPERS Board of Administration. Based on CalPERS requirements, active plan members in the Miscellaneous Plan are required to contribute 7% of their annual covered salary; while active plan members in the Police and Fire Plans are required to contribute 9% of their annual covered salary. The City is required to contribute at an actuarially determined rate for the remaining amounts necessary to cover benefits. In December 2010, the City contributed a total of $22,989,831 to CalPERS to pay off the CalPERS Police side fund obligation in the amount of $12,732,528 and the CalPERS Fire side fund obligation in the amount of $10,257,303. These amounts will be amortized as a level percentage of payroll over a ten year period. The payoff of the CalPERS side fund obligations did not affect the benefits due to existing or prior City employees. The fiscal year 2014, actuarially determined employer rates for the annual covered payroll are as listed below: Miscellaneous Employees 16.029% Police Employees 27.877% Fire Employees 27.877% Annual Pension Cost For fiscal year 2014, the City's annual pension cost of $9,254,901 for PERS was equal to the City's actual contributions. The required contribution was determined as part of the June 30, 2013, actuarial valuation using the entry age normal actuarial cost method. City of Santa Cruz Notes to Basic Financial Statements, Continued For the year ended June 30, 2014
R10:
POST-EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT BENEFITS Retiree Medical Plan The City of Santa Cruz Post-Retirement Health Care Plan is a single-employer defined benefit healthcare plan administered by the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). The Plan provides healthcare insurance benefits to eligible retirees. The City contributes the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) minimum required employer contribution of $115 per month towards the retiree monthly premium for eligible retirees participating in PEMHCA. The Plan does not issue a financial report. All part-time and full-time regular employees that meet specified Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) continuous service and minimum age requirements are also eligible to receive a Retiree Medical Incentive. Employees must meet the following minimum eligibility requirements: Service - Ten years of continued service with the City and be at least 55 years of age 0 Supervisor - Ten years of continued service with the City and be at least age 50 years of age City of Santa Cruz Notes to Basic Financial Statements, Continued For the year ended June 30, 2014
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The operations and activities of the Santa Cruz City Schools Parcel Tax Oversight Committee lack the transparency required for public oversight committees, including a website with posted meeting times and locations, agendas, minutes, and membership for the current year and prior historical records. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Santa Cruz City Schools District should reconstruct and make available on its website an institutional historical record of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee’s activities. This record should include but not be limited to the official committee charge, membership, and annual reports for the entire span of the committee’s existence, 2003 to the present. Where these records are unavailable, the website should note that absence. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: This recommendation has been implemented to the extent that records are available. The District updated the website for the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee before the Grand Jury Report was issued. The updated website now includes, among other elements: the Committee’s charge; a description of current parcel tax measures; its current membership; meeting dates, times, and locations; downloadable agendas and minutes; Parcel Tax Budget Summaries; information regarding applicability of the Brown Act; and to the extent feasible, past records and reports of the Committee. Where records are not available, the website notes their unavailability. The District has also added a link to the new Parcel Tax Oversight Committee Bylaws adopted by the District’s Board of Education at its May 20, 2015 meeting. (See link to Bylaws at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee- ptoc.html.)
R2:
The Santa Cruz City Schools website for the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee should include the Brown Act requirement, posted meeting times and locations, agendas, minutes, and membership, both for past and upcoming meetings. (F1, F14) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: This recommendation has been implemented to the extent records are available. As noted above in the District’s response to Recommendation 1, the District’s website has been updated to include, among other elements, all Parcel Tax Oversight Committee meeting dates, times, and locations for the current year, a reference to the applicability of the Brown Act to the Committee, and current Committee membership. Meeting and membership information will continue to be posted and updated going forward. Minutes, agendas, and membership information for years prior to 2014 are not available. (See http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html.).
F2:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee has not complied with operating rules defined by the Board of Education with respect to quorum or length of term. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee should ensure that all its members are apprised of the rules and regulations governing their activity, and its officers must require compliance with those rules. Rules should be established for addressing the issue of persistent non-attendance. (F2, F3, F6, F7) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Following the appointment of new members to the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee (PTOC), Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, Jim Monreal, provided an overview of the Committee’s role and responsibilities to the PTOC at the Committee’s March 2nd 2015 meeting. At the Committee’s April 20, 2015 meeting, Mr. Monreal also reviewed the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act as applicable to the Committee. (See PTOC Minutes, available at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html.) At the March 25, 2015 Board meeting, before the Grand Jury Report was released, SCCS Administration brought forward draft PTOC Bylaws for first reading by the Board. These Bylaws were then reviewed by the PTOC for their input at the April 20, 2015 PTOC meeting. A final version of the Bylaws was approved and adopted by the Board at its May 20, 2015 meeting. Among other matters, the Bylaws address the issue of persistent non-attendance by Committee members at Section 5.8. A link to the PTOC Bylaws has been posted on the District website. (See link to Bylaws at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight- committee-ptoc.html.)
F3:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee has not consistently tracked the attendance or responded to continued absences of its appointed members. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee should ensure that all its members are apprised of the rules and regulations governing their activity, and its officers must require compliance with those rules. Rules should be established for addressing the issue of persistent non-attendance. (F2, F3, F6, F7) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Following the appointment of new members to the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee (PTOC), Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, Jim Monreal, provided an overview of the Committee’s role and responsibilities to the PTOC at the Committee’s March 2nd 2015 meeting. At the Committee’s April 20, 2015 meeting, Mr. Monreal also reviewed the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act as applicable to the Committee. (See PTOC Minutes, available at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html.) At the March 25, 2015 Board meeting, before the Grand Jury Report was released, SCCS Administration brought forward draft PTOC Bylaws for first reading by the Board. These Bylaws were then reviewed by the PTOC for their input at the April 20, 2015 PTOC meeting. A final version of the Bylaws was approved and adopted by the Board at its May 20, 2015 meeting. Among other matters, the Bylaws address the issue of persistent non-attendance by Committee members at Section 5.8. A link to the PTOC Bylaws has been posted on the District website. (See link to Bylaws at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight- committee-ptoc.html.)
F4:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee has not provided annual oversight reports in any consistent or predictable format accessible to the general public. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
F5:
The lack of publicly available information regarding open positions on the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee leaves taxpayers who are not associated with Santa Cruz City Schools unaware of opportunities to serve on the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Santa Cruz City Schools Board of Education should solicit applications from the public at large whenever vacancies occur or terms expire among Board appointed seats. (F5) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED X HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: As set forth in Section 3.3 of the Bylaws adopted by the Board on May 20, 2015, “the Board of Education will solicit applications from the public at large for Board-appointed seats as vacancies occur. Notice of such vacancies and information regarding the application process will be advertised in the local media and published on the District’s website. Applications will be made available in the District Office and on the District website.” (See link to Bylaws at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html.)
F6:
For the 2013-14 school year (the first year of the new Measures I and J) the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee failed to meet, monitor expenditures and report to the community. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee should ensure that all its members are apprised of the rules and regulations governing their activity, and its officers must require compliance with those rules. Rules should be established for addressing the issue of persistent non-attendance. (F2, F3, F6, F7) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Following the appointment of new members to the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee (PTOC), Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, Jim Monreal, provided an overview of the Committee’s role and responsibilities to the PTOC at the Committee’s March 2nd 2015 meeting. At the Committee’s April 20, 2015 meeting, Mr. Monreal also reviewed the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act as applicable to the Committee. (See PTOC Minutes, available at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html.) At the March 25, 2015 Board meeting, before the Grand Jury Report was released, SCCS Administration brought forward draft PTOC Bylaws for first reading by the Board. These Bylaws were then reviewed by the PTOC for their input at the April 20, 2015 PTOC meeting. A final version of the Bylaws was approved and adopted by the Board at its May 20, 2015 meeting. Among other matters, the Bylaws address the issue of persistent non-attendance by Committee members at Section 5.8. A link to the PTOC Bylaws has been posted on the District website. (See link to Bylaws at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight- committee-ptoc.html.)
F7:
Neither the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee nor Santa Cruz City Schools has been able to verify that the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee has met its responsibility to monitor expenditures and report annually to the community. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): With the exception of 2013-2014, the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee has met annually since its formation to review and monitor parcel tax expenditures and has reported its findings to the Board. However, the reports have not had a consistent format or timeline.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee should ensure that all its members are apprised of the rules and regulations governing their activity, and its officers must require compliance with those rules. Rules should be established for addressing the issue of persistent non-attendance. (F2, F3, F6, F7) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Following the appointment of new members to the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee (PTOC), Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, Jim Monreal, provided an overview of the Committee’s role and responsibilities to the PTOC at the Committee’s March 2nd 2015 meeting. At the Committee’s April 20, 2015 meeting, Mr. Monreal also reviewed the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act as applicable to the Committee. (See PTOC Minutes, available at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html.) At the March 25, 2015 Board meeting, before the Grand Jury Report was released, SCCS Administration brought forward draft PTOC Bylaws for first reading by the Board. These Bylaws were then reviewed by the PTOC for their input at the April 20, 2015 PTOC meeting. A final version of the Bylaws was approved and adopted by the Board at its May 20, 2015 meeting. Among other matters, the Bylaws address the issue of persistent non-attendance by Committee members at Section 5.8. A link to the PTOC Bylaws has been posted on the District website. (See link to Bylaws at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight- committee-ptoc.html.)
F8:
Santa Cruz City Schools Board of Education has not defined the form that the annual report should take. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The required Parcel Tax Oversight Committee annual report at the end of the fiscal year should be prepared in advance and included in the Board book, presented orally at a Board meeting, distributed to local media, and published on the Santa Cruz City Schools website. (F8) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED X HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Guidelines for the PTOC Committee Annual Report are outlined in the Bylaws adopted by the Board at its May 20, 2015 meeting. Specifically, the Bylaws provide, at Section 3.3(C), that the Committee shall “[p]repare and present to the Board, in open session, an annual written report (“Annual Report”) which will include: (1) a statement indicating whether the District’s parcel tax revenue expenditures for the preceding year were made in accordance with the stated purpose of each parcel tax measure; and (2) a summary of the Committee’s proceedings for the preceding year.” The Bylaws further provide that the Annual Report “shall be made available to local media and the public and shall be posted on the District’s website.” (See link to Bylaws at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html.) When the PTOC presents their Annual Report to the Board on June 17, 2015, it will be presented both orally and in writing, made available to local media and the public and posted on the District website.
R8:
Future parcel tax language should be more precise about the specific responsibilities of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee, especially regarding the advisory nature of their oversight, required public reporting, and Brown Act compliance. (F8, F12, F13, F14) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The limited space allocated to a proposed ballot measure is inadequate to cover the purposes and specific responsibilities of the PTOC. Thus, the Board-adopted PTOC Bylaws address these issues. (See link to Bylaws at http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax- oversight-committee-ptoc.html.)
F9:
Administrative and clerical duties have been assigned to the counselors, counseling secretaries, and library staff, who are funded by parcel tax money. The use of parcel tax money to pay for administrative and clerical costs is contrary to the intent of the measure language. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The ballot language of the parcel taxes currently supporting District library services and counseling programs prohibits the use of parcel tax revenues for administrator salaries or benefits. (See Exhibits A, B, and C.) In accordance with these restrictions, parcel tax funds have been used to support school library services, which include credentialed librarians and other resources, and counseling services, which include credentialed counselors and other resources. No parcel tax revenue has been expended for administrators’ salaries or benefits and no “administrative duties” have been assigned to classified staff supporting those programs. The District further notes that funding of “clerical duties” in support of programs and services funded by parcel tax revenues is not contrary to the language of the parcel tax measures. Classified staff providing library and counseling services to students may perform clerical duties directly related to support of those programs. Such expenditures are wholly appropriate and within the parameters set forth in the parcel tax language.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Future parcel tax language should more accurately reflect the intent and priorities of the SCCS regarding spending priorities by including funding percentages where appropriate. (F9, F11) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: This recommendation will not be implemented. The current parcel tax language set forth in the text of Measures I, J, and P clearly states the intended purpose and priorities of each measure with regard to support of specific District programs and services. (See Exhibits A, B, and C.) As discussed in the District’s response to Finding 11, Measures I, J, and P do not require the District to allocate specific percentages of funding to supported programs and services. This provides the District with the flexibility needed to make funding decisions within the parameters outlined by each measure that are responsive to changing budgetary and staffing priorities. For example, the amount a program costs varies based on the costs of individual employees. Newer employees will cost less and more experienced employees will cost more. As the majority of the cost of programs funded by the parcel taxes is salaries of individuals that support student programs, the amounts for each program will vary based on the individual employee’s experience, which will vary from year to year. For example, if two librarians who are at the top of the pay scale with longevity choose to retire, librarians hired to replace the retirees may not be at the top of the pay scale, thus significantly shifting percentages of expenditures without any impact to the programs or services offered to students. Assigning specific funding percentages does not give the District the flexibility it needs to adjust funding to address shifting budgetary priorities over the course of each school year.
F10:
Santa Cruz City Schools failed in its obligation to provide annual information regarding the allocation of parcel tax funds. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Santa Cruz City Schools provides updates on all expenditures, including parcel taxes, at a minimum of three times each year through the Interim Budget Reports to the Board. Further, the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee receives regular updates from District staff on parcel tax expenditures. Parcel Tax Budget Summaries provided to the Committee through March 2, 2015 are available on the District website at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel- tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html. In addition, the District is subject to annual external audits of all expenditures and these audit findings are reported to the Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Santa Cruz City Schools business office should reconstruct from its financial records the parcel tax expenditures for all the years since the parcel tax was collected and post these on its website. (F10) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The District has implemented this recommendation. Parcel tax expenditures for the years 2002- 2003 to March 2015 are posted on the District’s website. (See http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html.)
F11:
The Board of Education has failed to follow its own explicit commitments for the proportional allocation of parcel tax funds. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below X DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The Board has allocated all parcel tax revenue in accordance with the requirements of each voter-approved parcel tax measure. In October 2005, the Board approved proposed funding percentages for revenue received from Measures A and B. However, Measures A and B have now expired. Moreover, the text of current parcel tax Measures I, J, and P does not contain language requiring the Board to allocate funding percentages to programs and services supported by the measures. (See Exhibits A, B. and C.) Accordingly, the Board has not taken action to allocate specific funding percentages for services and programs supported by Measures I, J and P.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Santa Cruz City Schools Board of Education should clarify its position on the percentages for funding priorities to which it committed in 2006, and either explicitly revise those percentages or instruct the District business office to comply with those percentages in its budget. (F11) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: This recommendation will be partially implemented. As discussed in Finding 11, the District’s Board has allocated all parcel tax revenue in accordance with the requirements of each voter- approved parcel tax measure. (See Exhibits A, B, and C.) In October 2005, the Board approved proposed funding percentages for revenue received from Measures A and B. However, Measures A and B have now expired. Therefore, the Board clarifies its position that current parcel tax Measures I, J, and P do not require the Board to allocate funding percentages to programs and services supported by the measures and that, accordingly, its Board has not taken action to allocate specific funding percentages for programs supported by Measures I, J and P. Pursuant to this clarification, the District will not “explicitly revise those percentages or instruct the District business office to comply with those percentages in its budget.”
R9:
Future parcel tax language should more accurately reflect the intent and priorities of the SCCS regarding spending priorities by including funding percentages where appropriate. (F9, F11) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: This recommendation will not be implemented. The current parcel tax language set forth in the text of Measures I, J, and P clearly states the intended purpose and priorities of each measure with regard to support of specific District programs and services. (See Exhibits A, B, and C.) As discussed in the District’s response to Finding 11, Measures I, J, and P do not require the District to allocate specific percentages of funding to supported programs and services. This provides the District with the flexibility needed to make funding decisions within the parameters outlined by each measure that are responsive to changing budgetary and staffing priorities. For example, the amount a program costs varies based on the costs of individual employees. Newer employees will cost less and more experienced employees will cost more. As the majority of the cost of programs funded by the parcel taxes is salaries of individuals that support student programs, the amounts for each program will vary based on the individual employee’s experience, which will vary from year to year. For example, if two librarians who are at the top of the pay scale with longevity choose to retire, librarians hired to replace the retirees may not be at the top of the pay scale, thus significantly shifting percentages of expenditures without any impact to the programs or services offered to students. Assigning specific funding percentages does not give the District the flexibility it needs to adjust funding to address shifting budgetary priorities over the course of each school year.
F12:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee, Board of Education Trustees, and Santa Cruz City Schools staff disagree concerning the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee’s role in making expenditure recommendations. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Future parcel tax language should be more precise about the specific responsibilities of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee, especially regarding the advisory nature of their oversight, required public reporting, and Brown Act compliance. (F8, F12, F13, F14) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The limited space allocated to a proposed ballot measure is inadequate to cover the purposes and specific responsibilities of the PTOC. Thus, the Board-adopted PTOC Bylaws address these issues. (See link to Bylaws at http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax- oversight-committee-ptoc.html.)
F13:
The Board of Education has failed to provide a formal charge to the members of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (2)
R8:
Future parcel tax language should be more precise about the specific responsibilities of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee, especially regarding the advisory nature of their oversight, required public reporting, and Brown Act compliance. (F8, F12, F13, F14) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The limited space allocated to a proposed ballot measure is inadequate to cover the purposes and specific responsibilities of the PTOC. Thus, the Board-adopted PTOC Bylaws address these issues. (See link to Bylaws at http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax- oversight-committee-ptoc.html.)
R10:
The Santa Cruz City Schools Board of Education should provide the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee with a formal charge. (F13) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: At Section 2.2, the Board-adopted PTOC Bylaws provide, in part: “The Committee’s charge is to review and report on the expenditure of parcel tax revenues and to ensure said revenue is expended in accordance with the stated purposes of each parcel tax measure.” The Committee’s charge is also posted on the District website. (See http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html.)
F14:
The Board of Education has failed to require the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee to comply with the Brown Act. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The Santa Cruz City Schools website for the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee should include the Brown Act requirement, posted meeting times and locations, agendas, minutes, and membership, both for past and upcoming meetings. (F1, F14) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: This recommendation has been implemented to the extent records are available. As noted above in the District’s response to Recommendation 1, the District’s website has been updated to include, among other elements, all Parcel Tax Oversight Committee meeting dates, times, and locations for the current year, a reference to the applicability of the Brown Act to the Committee, and current Committee membership. Meeting and membership information will continue to be posted and updated going forward. Minutes, agendas, and membership information for years prior to 2014 are not available. (See http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html.).
R8:
Future parcel tax language should be more precise about the specific responsibilities of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee, especially regarding the advisory nature of their oversight, required public reporting, and Brown Act compliance. (F8, F12, F13, F14) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The limited space allocated to a proposed ballot measure is inadequate to cover the purposes and specific responsibilities of the PTOC. Thus, the Board-adopted PTOC Bylaws address these issues. (See link to Bylaws at http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax- oversight-committee-ptoc.html.)
R11:
The Santa Cruz City Schools Board of Education should require the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee to comply with the Brown Act. (F14) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: At Section 2.3, the Board-adopted PTOC Bylaws require the Committee to, among other things, “abide by the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (the “Brown Act”) (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.) and all rules of conduct established in these Bylaws.” (See link to Bylaws at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html.) At the April 20, 2015 PTOC Meeting, Assistant Superintendent Jim Monreal, provided training for the Committee on the Brown Act requirements as applicable to the PTOC. This training will be renewed whenever new members are added to the PTOC Committee and will be reviewed annually at the first meeting of each new fiscal year. (See PTOC Minutes, available at: http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/community/parcel-tax-oversight-committee-ptoc.html.) .
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F12:
The continued success of Santa Cruz Regional 911 is dependant upon the successful replacement of the Computer Aided Dispatch software. XX AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below ___ DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): The current CAD system in use by SCR9-1-1 is Motorola Printrak CAD. This CAD system has served (and is continuing to serve) the community of Santa Cruz since 1996. It is a robust system that currently meets all of our User's needs. Motorola has informed SCR9-1-1 that they will no longer support this version of CAD past August 31, 2018, therefore it is imperative that a replacement product be purchased, installed, and functional prior to that date. SCR9-1-1 staff has begun the process of investigating CAD systems in order to have enough information to develop a comprehensive Request for Proposal in order to acquire a replacement system.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
Santa Cruz Regional 911 should replace the Computer Aided Dispatch software prior to the 2017/18 fiscal year. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED XX HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: With the current CAD system in use by SCR911 having and "end of life" date of August 31, 2018, SCR911 will have a new CAD system purchased, installed, and functional prior to the end of FY 17/18. The process is a long, complicated one that has already begun. SCR911 management staff has developed a realistic timeline to ensure that the new CAD system is ready to go by the time the current system is end of life. SCR911 Board of Directors has been involved in the planning of the Long Term Equipment Replacement schedule for many years, which has included a CAD replacement project. Funding for this project has been also discussed as part of our long term plan. • •
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Continually rising retirement costs and obligations put funding of jurisdictions' services and projects at risk. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The Soquel Creek Water District’s total Unfunded Liability (UL) for pension and OPEB as of June 30, 2013 was $9 million. Required employer contributions are estimated at $682,000 for the 2015/16 fiscal year and projected to rise over four more years before flattening out. If the District pays according to CalPERS amortization schedule, the pension UL costs would total $14.9 million over 30 years. This is the first year that small employers in the mandated CalPERS risk pools have the ability to effectively manage their pension liabilities. The Fiscal Year 2015/16 Budget adopted by the Board on June 16, 2015 includes funding for accelerated payment of the UL. The smaller liability associated with the Second Tier plan will be paid off and the District intends to pay down the liability for the First Tier plan in ten years instead of thirty in order to achieve significant long term savings. Retirement costs certainly contribute to the District’s financial pressures. However, as noted in the 2015 Ten-Year Finance Plan (Attachment 1), the District faces financial challenges on a number of fronts that combined, put significant upward pressure on future water rates. Future anticipated projects and costs include: $80 million (in escalated $) to develop a supplemental water supply project. New and ongoing annual maintenance costs to operate the project once it’s placed into service are estimated to be $1.3 million starting in 2022/23. $70 million (in escalated $) of water system capital needs in the current and next ten years, along with $1 million to $2 million each year for capital outlay, studies, and planning efforts. The District will be required to issue additional debt, which will increase debt service payments, in order to fund the supplemental supply project. $875,000 for Conservation Program expenses in 2015/16 increasing annually to $1.3 Million in 2024/25 depending upon the degree of implementation. $350,000 starting in 2017/18 in ongoing annual operational costs for hexavalent chromium treatment. The District is currently operating in an environment of declining water sales and will need to raise rates to meet its financial obligations and ensure long term financial stability. Retirement costs must be acknowledged and properly managed but are not the District’s sole source of financial pressure. To state that these costs alone put services and projects at risk is not a fair and accurate assessment of the District’s overall financial outlook.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To prevent reductions in public services, each of the six public agencies studied in this report should increase, and make public, their efforts to manage and reduce retirement costs and obligations. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The Soquel Creek Water District has a history of proactively managing, to the extent possible, its retirement costs and obligations. Actions taken to date include: Retirement 2005: Negotiated a contract change to discontinue certain benefits to newly hired employees 2011: Paid off, eight years ahead of schedule, the CalPERS side fund which was accruing interest at 7.75% 2013: Negotiated a contract change to discontinue the Employer Payment of Member Contributions (EPMC) 2015: Adopted the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget which includes funding to pay off the unfunded liability for the Second Tier plan and to make a payment in excess of what is owed on the First Tier plan with the intention of paying down the unfunded liability in ten years instead of thirty years in order to achieve significant long term savings Other Post Retirement Benefits (OPEB) 2011: Enrolled in the CalPERS Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT) and began pre-funding retiree health benefits 2013: Negotiated a contract change whereby certain eligible retirees pay 10% of the health premium until they are eligible for Medicare. The District pays 100% of the Supplemental Medicare Premium 2013: Negotiated a contract change lengthening the number of years of District service AND the age requirement necessary to earn full retirement health benefits District staff will continue to monitor retirement costs and obligations on an on- going basis and seek ways in which to achieve savings and minimize the impact on District finances.
F2:
A clear and complete statement of the total retirement costs and obligations has not been provided in the budget narrative for either the public or elected officials. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): At the April 21, 2015 regular meeting of the Board of Directors, Staff presented an informational report on California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Risk Pool Changes (Attachment 2). The report provided an overview of the District’s retirement benefits under its contract with CalPERS and information regarding revisions to the risk pool that affect benefits costs. A clear and complete statement of pension retirement costs and obligations was presented. The report was intended to serve as a resource for the discussion and development of funding strategies during May’s budget discussions. Staff released the information ahead of the budget discussions to allow time for the Board (and public) to digest the information and formulate questions. The 2015-16 Budget contains information regarding OPEB expenses but does not address the unfunded liability. More complete information regarding retirement costs and obligations (pensions and retiree health or OPEB) is appropriately located in the District’s annual audited financial statements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each of the six public agencies studied in this report should provide, in language understandable to the public, the totality of retirement obligations in their annual budget narratives beginning with the fiscal year 2015/16 budget. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED X HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The District will include expanded language regarding retirement obligations in the annual budget narratives beginning with the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget. Additionally, the April 21, 2015 financial report on pensions (referenced above in
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
Branciforte Fire Protection District should negotiate with Scotts Valley Fire Protection District for the provision of managerial oversight of administration and operations by Scotts Valley. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED __ HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below __ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) __ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The Branciforte Fire Protection District Board of Directors signed a Managerial Services Agreement with Scotts Vally at our next Board of Directors meeting on September 17th 2015. The administration and operations by Scotts Valley FPD for the Branciforte FPD will begin on October 1 2015. Pat O’Connell Fire Chief 831 423-8856
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The consolidation of Fire and Emergency Medical System dispatch services at the Santa Cruz Regional 911 center and mutual aid agreements between districts have created an efficient virtual single service district for those services in the entire county. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Partially Agree: While dispatch services have been streamlined and become very efficient, it has created some potential for lag time in non-emergency responses; especially for the volunteer agencies. Career fire agencies respond to non-emergency requests quite often, in some areas as much as 12% of responses are for non-emergency, public service requests/calls; in fact in Santa Cruz County that percentage stands at 9%. The lag time comes into play for volunteer agencies, where some dispatchers are very hesitant to dispatch a non-emergency call during "non-office" hours, such as early morning hours... because said agencies are not "staffed" around the clock. Just because an incident is classified as non-emergency does not mean that there is no urgency needed in mitigating a problem. A water leak may be a non-emergency incident, however, unchecked it can and often will lead to flooding and can result in significant damage. County Communications (NetComm) should dispatch ALL non-emergency requests in the same manner; if a career agency would/will respond to such an incident during "off-hours", and is therefore dispatched immediately; the same must be the case for volunteer agencies.
F2:
Shared services between fire districts have improved response times, training, and services across the county. X AGREE _ PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Partially Agree: Unsure exactly how "shared services" would lead to improved response times; shared services are usually prevention, maintenance and in the case of the county, dispatch services. A centralized dispatch probably improves call handling times, which would lead to more efficient dispatching, however travel times are what they are... any improvements due to dispatching would show in the "call-taking" time where an incident is triaged, located and then appropriate agency(ies) are dispatched. Shared training and joint purchasing have been around for a little while now and lead to better efficiency in skills and more purchasing power with apparatus and equipment. These would not have any affect, however, on response times (with the exception of perhaps newer, safer apparatus). What could lead to improvements in response times, from a 'shared service" point of view would be/are improvements to mutual aid, such as the concepts of "boundary drops" where the closest apparatus is dispatched, regardless of jurisdiction.
F11:
The differences in policies and procedures of the four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley inhibit future consolidation. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain disputed portion below DISAGREE - explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than "Agree"): Partially Agree: The San Lorenzo Valley fire districts, along with other stakeholders, such as Scotts Valley Fire, Cal-Fire and Branciforte Fire have created a "District Council" where various chief officers and or board members/administrators meet to discuss challenges facing these areas specifically. As direct result, "joint policies" have been formulated to address such concerns and bring all stakeholders into greater consistency with policies. These agencies also participate in joint training and prevention details in an effort to increase inter-operability and efficiency. The biggest inhibition to future consolidation of the SLV fire districts is that most districts serve as the sole representative of "local government" for said town (or geographic area). The fire stations serve as the meeting location for various civic groups active in those towns (or geographic areas). This creates a feel of autonomy for each town, all of whom are unincorporated; and serve as a great source of local pride. This has been alluded to in the previous Grand Jury report.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
The four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley should further align their policies and procedures in anticipation of future consolidation. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) _ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Has Been Implemented: Please see the response above regarding the District Council. The various agencies and stakeholders have been meeting and working to more closely align policies and practices; in addition to joint purchasing, joint training and joint fire prevention activities. Being made up of a majority of volunteer agencies does restrict funding and can make for slower progress; however significant gains have been made and will continue. Future steps could include such ideas as boundary drops added into mutual aid practices and shared equipment specifications for such equipment as fire hose, protective clothing and self-contained breathing apparatus.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Continually rising retirement costs and obligations put funding of jurisdictions' services and projects at risk. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): As with any projected expenditure increase, the City agrees that rising pension costs will either have to be offset with future revenue increases or reductions in services or projects. The City partially disagrees with the finding as the City has taken a number of proactive steps to address this issue. For example this fiscal year the City established a PERS Contingency Fund. The Fund was set up to help stabilize the City’s finances and to help manage future increases in PERS contributions. In addition, current longterm projections show the City with a balanced budget position in future years, due to current fiscal policies, increased revenue, and the payoff of Pension Obligation Bonds. However, given the potential for an economic downturn or other revenue contractions, these projections must be consistency analyzed and monitored and City services levels evaluated in the face of changing economic conditions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To prevent reductions in public services, each of the six public agencies studied in this report should increase, and make public, their efforts to manage and reduce retirement costs and obligations. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The City of Capitola has been proactive in addressing retirement obligations. The City issued a Pension Obligation Bond in 2007 to pay off the CalPERS side fund that CalPERS established in 2003. The POB allowed the City to reduce the interest rate charged on the side fund from 7.75 percent that CalPERS charges to 6.01 percent. The City also implemented a cap on the City’s contribution to CalPERS. The cap required that employees pay all pension costs above the cap. The City was one of very few jurisdictions in the state with essentially fixed pension costs as a percentage of payroll. The cap allowed for a predictable expenditure stream into future years. In 2012, the City also implemented a Tier II retirement plan for new hires that required an additional five percent employee contribution towards retirement. Unfortunately the recent changes in the CalPERS risk pooling formulas have had a significant negative impact on the City. In fact, the scale of the impact effectively made the City’s cap on employer CalPERS contributions unsustainable, as it would have required employees to contribute more than 25 percent of their salary toward pension costs in coming years. The amended employee agreements establish increasing employee retirement contributions rates, projected to be over 15 percent for safety and over 14 percent for miscellaneous upon the end of the term of the existing contracts. The City believes these employee contribution rates are among the highest in the State. To address the larger actuarial unfunded pension liability requires further analysis. There are several possibilities the City will evaluate in Fiscal Year 2015/16. Some of the possibilities include increased payments to CalPERS to reduce the Unfunded Liability and become fully funded in fewer years, a Pension Obligation Bond to reduce, and lock in, interest rates, and a new idea to set up an irrevocable trust fund for future CalPERS payments. Lastly, CalPERS continues to examine their long term funding challenges. The City will follow these potential changes closely, and should changes occur, develop plans to address the impacts as quickly as possible.
F2:
A clear and complete statement of the total retirement costs and obligations has not been provided in the budget narrative for either the public or elected officials. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The City agrees with this finding. The City believes we have previously included detail of pension costs in several different areas of the budget but the City agrees that having the information in one section would improve the transparency of the City’s Budget. A new chart showing the total retirement costs, along with funding ratios and funded status will be included in the Final Fiscal Year 201516 Budget and all future budget documents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each of the six public agencies studied in this report should provide, in language understandable to the public, the totality of retirement obligations in their annual budget narratives beginning with the fiscal year 2015/16 budget. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED x HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: This recommendation will be included in the Final Fiscal Year 2015/16 Budget Document. The City agrees that the City’s Budget document should provide readers with the totality of the retirement obligations. The City will include the below chart in its Final Fiscal Year 2015/15 Budget Document:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Compostable organic waste, which makes up approximately one third of municipal solid waste, must be diverted in order to extend the life of Santa Cruz County landfills and meet state mandates, specifically AB 1826. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The City of Capitola is fully committed to extending the life of the Santa Cruz County landfill. Capitola will continue to find ways to increase diversion rates of waste, including promoting greater commercial participation in the food waste and food scrap program and educating consumers on the proper use of the different waste bins.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In order to comply with AB 1826 mandates, the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should join with Santa Cruz County to form a regional agency to develop a largescale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: As noted in the Grand Jury report, organic material from the City of Capitola currently is taken to the MRWMD organic composting facility pursuant to a long term agreement. MRWMD anticipates that the life span of its permitted organic processing capabilities will be at least equal to the life span of the District’s landfill disposal operations; a life span that is predicted to exceed 100 years at this time. Capitola will continue to participate in the evaluation process for developing a largescale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County. When the current contract with GreenWaste and the MRWMD expires, or final funding decisions regarding a regional largescale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County are required, the City of Capitola will evaluate its options and determine the best option for the City and its residents.
F2:
Unless Santa Cruz County and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola, Scotts Valley and Watsonville invest politically and financially in largescale organics recycling systems, they will be out of compliance with AB 1826 by the year 2020 or sooner. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below x DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): As noted in the Grand Jury report, the City of Capitola currently sends organic material to the Marina facility operated by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD). MRWMD anticipates that the life span of its permitted organic processing capabilities will be at least equal to the life span of the District’s landfill disposal operations; a life span that is predicted to exceed 100 years at this time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The current pilot program for composting food waste from restaurants and other large institutions in Capitola and Santa Cruz County should be expanded to serve other businesses in the AB 1826 first and second tiers throughout Santa Cruz County, including Scotts Valley and Watsonville, until a regional facility can be developed. x HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The City of Capitola uses the MRWMD Marina facility for organics recycling. Over the past 3 years, Capitola has averaged approximately 40tons of food waste per month, the current contract allows for up to 10,000 tons of organic material per year. Capitola implemented a program designed to serve businesses in the AB 1826 first and second tiers in 2010. Capitola will continue to reach out to the business community to increase overall participation in organics recycling. The City of Capitola will continue to participate in the pilot food composting program and work with businesses to expand participation in the program.
F3:
Santa Cruz County and the cities of Capitola, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville all passed resolutions in 2005 recommending a regional composting facility, but as of 2015, no facility has been constructed, nor is there a completed plan to do so. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The City of Capitola will continue to participate on the Santa Cruz County Integrated Waste Management Local Task Force in working on finding a suitable location for a Santa Cruz County composting facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
After selection of a composting contractor and technology by the Local Task Force, Santa Cruz County and the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should create a coordinated outreach program to inform businesses and the public about the benefits and requirements of the new organics recycling program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED _ HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The City of Capitola works locally with its hauling franchisee, GreenWaste, to increase participation in the organics recycling program. Public outreach and communication with local businesses and residents will continue. The City of Capitola is committed to participating with the Santa Cruz County Integrated Waste Management Local Task Force in developing coordinated outreach to the business and residential communities to improve participation in organic recycling programs. A coordinated approach can be beneficial, however it will have to be determined if the specifics of such effort will be in the best interest of the City of Capitola and its citizens.
F5:
Unless the Monterey Regional Waste Management District decides to expand its current organic composting facility, Santa Cruz County jurisdictions cannot rely on it as a longterm solution for their organic waste recycling needs. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below x DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): MRWMD anticipates that the life span of its permitted organic processing capabilities will be at least equal to the life span of the District’s landfill disposal operations; a life span that is predicted to exceed 100 years at this time.
F7:
Rules about what can be put in the “green cart” are inconsistent and not well understood by the general public. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): In order to help Capitola businesses and residents better understand the rules regarding rules associated with green carts, Capitola communicates this information in a number of ways. The City and GreenWaste issue biannual newsletters to all Capitola addresses, the City advertises the requirements in the local phone book and the City will continue to keep its website up to date with all the cart requirements and rules.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
Curbside “green carts” and bins should be clearly labeled to instruct residential and commercial customers specifying what materials are acceptable. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED x HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Capitola will work with GreenWaste to improve labeling in order to facilitate better understanding of the “green carts.” Capitola will work with the other jurisdictions through the Santa Cruz County Integrated Waste Management Local Task Force to promote consistency in the instruction and labeling of the “green carts.”
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Local jurisdictions have not provided adequate emergency shelter to accommodate the vast majority (80%) of the more than 3,500 total homeless persons in Santa Cruz County (using 2013 PIT data). X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation:
F2:
Despite persistent unmet needs, local jurisdictions have chosen not to fund or plan to increase the number of emergency shelter beds and services. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation:
F3:
Reliance on the National Guard Armory with its strict rules and regulations limits the effectiveness of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation:
F4:
The absence of a backup plan to replace the National Guard Armory threatens the continuing existence of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation:
F5:
Insufficient emergency shelter capacity limits access to coordinated entry services for the homeless population. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
F6:
Insufficient numbers of personnel and case managers at the emergency shelters limit the services that can be provided to homeless individuals. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate more funds for additional case managers for the local emergency shelters. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation:
F7:
Insufficient number of staff dedicated to grant writing results in missed grant funding opportunities. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate additional staff to seek more grant funding for emergency shelters. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The office of the SheriffCoroner has exercised minimal oversight of its contract with California Forensic Medical Group.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SheriffCoroner should designate qualified personnel to oversee the medical services contract provisions and compliance with standards. (F1)
F2:
The office of the SheriffCoroner lacks independent medical expertise to oversee California Forensic Medical Group’s delivery of medical services to county detention facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The SheriffCoroner should obtain independent oversight of its jail medical services by medically qualified personnel. (F2)
F3:
The absence of quality assurance findings and corrective actions in the California Forensic Medical Group Annual Report of Medical Services compromises the ability of the SheriffCoroner to oversee and ensure the quality of care in the county jails.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The SheriffCoroner should direct its medical care services contractor to include in its annual report quality assurance findings and corrective actions taken as required in the current contract for medical services. These annual reports should be available for review by authorized agencies. (F3)
F4:
Current procedures for monitoring inmates younger than age 65 do not identify their potential need for a higher level of care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The SheriffCoroner should direct the medical care services contractor to develop and implement procedures to identify at intake and then monitor medically fragile inmates younger than 65 years of age. (F4)
F5:
The contract with California Forensic Medical Group lacks provisions for external review by authorized investigative persons or agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The SheriffCoroner should, upon contract renewal, require its contractor for jail medical services to provide site specific policy and procedure manuals to the County Health Officer and other authorized reviewers. (F5)
F6:
Without accreditation, contractual adherence to California Medical Association Institute for Medical Quality accreditation standards cannot be verified.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The SheriffCoroner should require, at the time of contract renewal, that the jail medical services provider obtain and maintain California Medical AssociationInstitute for Medical Quality accreditation for the Main Jail, Blaine Street, and Rountree detention facilities. (F6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The office of the SheriffCoroner has exercised minimal oversight of its contract with California Forensic Medical Group. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below x DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The Sheriff and designees are actively involved in oversight of the medical services provided by CFMG. At the request of the SheriffCoroner and pursuant to the provision of Section 101045 of the California State Health and Safety Code, the Public Health Division of the Health Services Agency conducts an Annual Inspection of the County Detention Facilities. A supervisor attends a joint medical, mental health and custody Crisis Intervention Team meeting five days a week. A facility commander frequently attends the meeting, and the chief deputy occasionally attends the meeting. The chief deputy and the facility manager regularly attend the quarterly multidisciplinary quality assurance committee. The chief deputy frequently consults and works with CFMG management to review and/or modify procedures to improve medical services, reduce risk and prevent negative outcomes. The facility manager frequently meets with CFMG medical supervisors to review and/or modify procedures to improve medical services, reduce risk and prevent negative outcomes. The watch commander and jail supervisors daily interact with CFMG medical providers in a collaborative approach to provide medical services to inmates. The facility manager and chief deputy overseen the Suicide Response Team, a collaborative team comprised of Corrections, County Mental Health and CFMG Medical.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SheriffCoroner should designate qualified personnel to oversee the medical services contract provisions and compliance with standards. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below _ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Several layers of review currently exist: CFMG employs a licensed physician to supervise and perform medical services in the county detention facilities; CFMG contracts a licensed local physician to perform external peer review of physician practices. The Local Medical Peer Review Committee and conducts routine audits of medical services; the Public Health Division of the Health Services Agency conducts an Annual Inspection of the County Detention Facilities, during which representatives of the Agency reviews CFMG policies. The 2015 Grand Jury report Medical Services at the Jails does not provide evidence that medical services to inmates would be improved by designating additional personnel to oversee medical services or provide evidence to suggest noncompliance with standards. The SheriffCoroner will continue to work to achieve the best medical services available for inmates.
F2:
The office of the SheriffCoroner lacks independent medical expertise to oversee California Forensic Medical Group’s delivery of medical services to county detention facilities. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Although the SheriffCoroner does not directly employ or contract a physician to oversee the medical services contract, the County Health Officer, a licensed physician, as well as other county medical and health officials, regularly participate in quarterly quality assurance meetings and perform independent reviews on an annual basis. At the request of the SheriffCoroner and pursuant to the provision of Section 101045 of the California State Health and Safety Code, the Public Health Division of the Health Services Agency conducts an Annual Inspection of the County Detention Facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The SheriffCoroner should obtain independent oversight of its jail medical services by medically qualified personnel. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below _ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The report does not provide evidence that medical services to inmates would be improved by designating additional personnel to oversee medical services or provide evidence to suggest noncompliance with standards. The SheriffCoroner will continue to work to achieve the best medical services available for inmates.
F3:
The absence of quality assurance findings and corrective actions in the California Forensic Medical Group Annual Report of Medical Services compromises the ability of the SheriffCoroner to oversee and ensure the quality of care in the county jails. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below x_DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Quality assurance review meetings occur quarterly and attended by representatives from several disciplines and authorities other than medical professionals associated with CFMG including the County Health Officer, the County Director of Nursing; the County Behavioral Health Manager; the County Psychiatrist; the Sheriff’s Chief Deputy. At the request of the SheriffCoroner and pursuant to the provision of Section 101045 of the California State Health and Safety Code, the Public Health Division of the Health Services Agency conducts an Annual Inspection of the County Detention Facilities. As a component of CFMG’s Quality Management / Assurance Management Program, CFMG contracts a local physician to peer review medical practices and participate with The Local Medical Peer Review Committee conducts routine audits of medical services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The SheriffCoroner should, upon contract renewal, require its contractor for jail medical services to provide site specific policy and procedure manuals to the County Health Officer and other authorized reviewers. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The SheriffCoroner will consider, upon contract renewal, requiring its contractor for jail medical services to provide site specific policy and procedure manuals to the County Health Officer and other authorized reviewers.
F4:
Current procedures for monitoring inmates younger than age 65 do not identify their potential need for a higher level of care. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below x DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): Existing medical screening procedures apply to all arrestees, regardless of age, to identify any arrestees or inmates who require medical evaluation or care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The SheriffCoroner should direct its medical care services contractor to include in its annual report quality assurance findings and corrective actions taken as required in the current contract for medical services. These annual reports should be available for review by authorized agencies. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The SheriffCoroner will consider, upon contract renewal, requiring its medical care services contractor to include in its annual report quality assurance findings and corrective actions taken as required in the current contract for medical services. These annual reports should be available for review by authorized agencies.
F5:
The contract with California Forensic Medical Group lacks provisions for external review by authorized investigative persons or agencies. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below x DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”): The Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities Title 15 Regulation 1205 – Medical and Mental Health Records requires the health authority to maintain medical records, confers the physicianpatient confidentiality privilege and requires controlled access to records. CFMG maintains a Standardized Transfer of Medical Information policy. The policy manual provides for various types of reviews, including InCustody Death Review; Local Medical Peer Review and Quality Assurance Review. Specific legal authority for access to medical records need not be repeated in policy. The Public Health Division of the Health Services Agency conducts an Annual Inspection of the County Detention Facilities, during which representatives of the Agency reviews CFMG policies. As a component of CFMG’s Quality Management / Assurance Management Program, CFMG contracts a local physician to perform external peer review of physician practices. The Local Medical Peer Review Committee conducts routine audits of medical services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The SheriffCoroner should require, at the time of contract renewal, that the jail medical services provider obtain and maintain California Medical AssociationInstitute for Medical Quality accreditation for the Main Jail, Blaine Street, and Rountree detention facilities. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: The SheriffCoroner will consider, upon contract renewal, requiring , that the jail medical services provider obtain and maintain California Medical AssociationInstitute for Medical Quality accreditation for the Main Jail, Blaine Street, and Rountree detention facilities.
F6:
Without accreditation, contractual adherence to California Medical Association Institute for Medical Quality accreditation standards cannot be verified. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE explain disputed portion below _ DISAGREE explain below Response explanation (required for responses other than “Agree”):
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The SheriffCoroner should direct the medical care services contractor to develop and implement procedures to identify at intake and then monitor medically fragile inmates younger than 65 years of age. x HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE indicate timeframe below REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS explain scope and timeframe below (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED explain below Response summary, timeframe or explanation: Policies and procedures have been in place and will continue to be in place to identify at intake and then monitor medically fragile inmates younger than 65 years of age.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Compostable organic waste, which makes up approximately one third of municipal solid waste, must be diverted in order to extend the life of Santa Cruz County landfills and meet state mandates, specifically AB 1826.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
In order to comply with AB 1826 mandates, the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should join with Santa Cruz County to form a regional agency to develop a largescale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)
R2:
The current pilot program for composting food waste from restaurants and other large institutions in Capitola and Santa Cruz County should be expanded to serve other businesses in the AB 1826 first and second tiers throughout Santa Cruz County, including Scotts Valley and Watsonville, until a regional facility can be developed. (F1, F2, F4)
F2:
Unless Santa Cruz County and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola, Scotts Valley and Watsonville invest politically and financially in largescale organics recycling systems, they will be out of compliance with AB 1826 by the year 2020 or sooner.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
In order to comply with AB 1826 mandates, the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should join with Santa Cruz County to form a regional agency to develop a largescale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)
R2:
The current pilot program for composting food waste from restaurants and other large institutions in Capitola and Santa Cruz County should be expanded to serve other businesses in the AB 1826 first and second tiers throughout Santa Cruz County, including Scotts Valley and Watsonville, until a regional facility can be developed. (F1, F2, F4)
F3:
Santa Cruz County and the cities of Capitola, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville all passed resolutions in 2005 recommending a regional composting facility, but as of 2015, no facility has been constructed, nor is there a completed plan to do so.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In order to comply with AB 1826 mandates, the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should join with Santa Cruz County to form a regional agency to develop a largescale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)
F4:
Rather than building a permanent local infrastructure for organics composting, Santa Cruz County and the city of Capitola opted to continue their commercial composting pilot programs by hauling food waste out of the county to the Monterey Bay Regional Waste Management District’s composting facility, at considerable cost in time and fuel.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
In order to comply with AB 1826 mandates, the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should join with Santa Cruz County to form a regional agency to develop a largescale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)
R2:
The current pilot program for composting food waste from restaurants and other large institutions in Capitola and Santa Cruz County should be expanded to serve other businesses in the AB 1826 first and second tiers throughout Santa Cruz County, including Scotts Valley and Watsonville, until a regional facility can be developed. (F1, F2, F4)
F5:
Unless the Monterey Regional Waste Management District decides to expand its current organic composting facility, Santa Cruz County jurisdictions cannot rely on it as a longterm solution for their organic waste recycling needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In order to comply with AB 1826 mandates, the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should join with Santa Cruz County to form a regional agency to develop a largescale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)
F6:
Unless the cities of Watsonville and Scotts Valley develop organic waste recycling programs, neither city will be in compliance with AB 1826 by January 1, 2016.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In order to comply with AB 1826 mandates, the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville should join with Santa Cruz County to form a regional agency to develop a largescale organics recycling system located in Santa Cruz County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)
F7:
Rules about what can be put in the “green cart” are inconsistent and not well understood by the general public.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
After selection of a composting contractor and technology by the Local Task Force, Santa Cruz County and the cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should create a coordinated outreach program to inform businesses and the public about the benefits and requirements of the new organics recycling program. (F7) 21
R4:
Curbside “green carts” and bins should be clearly labeled to instruct residential and commercial customers specifying what materials are acceptable. (F7)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Continually rising retirement costs and obligations put funding of jurisdictions' services and projects at risk.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To prevent reductions in public services, each of the six public agencies studied in this report should increase, and make public, their efforts to manage and reduce retirement costs and obligations. (F1)
F2:
A clear and complete statement of the total retirement costs and obligations has not been provided in the budget narrative for either the public or elected officials. 14
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each of the six public agencies studied in this report should provide, in language understandable to the public, the totality of retirement obligations in their annual budget narratives beginning with the fiscal year 2015/16 budget. (F2)
F3:
Enrollment in the CalPERS Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Fund reduces employer contributions, prevents retiree health obligations from becoming a significant budget liability, and contributes to a positive credit rating.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should enroll in the California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CalPERS Trust Fund) to prefund retiree health obligations and unfunded liabilities. (F3)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The operations and activities of the Santa Cruz City Schools Parcel Tax Oversight Committee lack the transparency required for public oversight committees, including a website with posted meeting times and locations, agendas, minutes, and membership for the current year and prior historical records.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Santa Cruz City Schools District should reconstruct and make available on its website an institutional historical record of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee’s activities. This record should include but not be limited to the official committee charge, membership, and annual reports for the entire span of the committee’s existence, 2003 to the present. Where these records are unavailable, the website should note that absence. (F1, F4, F5, F7, F14)
R2:
The Santa Cruz City Schools website for the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee should include the Brown Act requirement, posted meeting times and locations, agendas, minutes, and membership, both for past and upcoming meetings. (F1,
F2:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee has not complied with operating rules defined by the Board of Education with respect to quorum or length of term.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee should ensure that all its members are apprised of the rules and regulations governing their activity, and its officers must require compliance with those rules. Rules should be established for addressing the issue of persistent nonattendance. (F2, F3, F6, F7)
F3:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee has not consistently tracked the attendance or responded to continued absences of its appointed members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee should ensure that all its members are apprised of the rules and regulations governing their activity, and its officers must require compliance with those rules. Rules should be established for addressing the issue of persistent nonattendance. (F2, F3, F6, F7)
F4:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee has not provided annual oversight reports in any consistent or predictable format accessible to the general public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz City Schools District should reconstruct and make available on its website an institutional historical record of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee’s activities. This record should include but not be limited to the official committee charge, membership, and annual reports for the entire span of the committee’s existence, 2003 to the present. Where these records are unavailable, the website should note that absence. (F1, F4, F5, F7, F14)
F5:
The lack of publicly available information regarding open positions on the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee leaves taxpayers who are not associated with Santa Cruz City Schools unaware of opportunities to serve on the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Santa Cruz City Schools District should reconstruct and make available on its website an institutional historical record of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee’s activities. This record should include but not be limited to the official committee charge, membership, and annual reports for the entire span of the committee’s existence, 2003 to the present. Where these records are unavailable, the website should note that absence. (F1, F4, F5, F7, F14)
R7:
The Santa Cruz City Schools Board of Education should solicit applications from the public at large whenever vacancies occur or terms expire among Board appointed seats. (F5)
F6:
For the 201314 school year (the first year of the new Measures I and J) the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee failed to meet, monitor expenditures and report to the community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee should ensure that all its members are apprised of the rules and regulations governing their activity, and its officers must require compliance with those rules. Rules should be established for addressing the issue of persistent nonattendance. (F2, F3, F6, F7)
F7:
Neither the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee nor Santa Cruz City Schools has been able to verify that the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee has met its responsibility to monitor expenditures and report annually to the community.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Santa Cruz City Schools District should reconstruct and make available on its website an institutional historical record of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee’s activities. This record should include but not be limited to the official committee charge, membership, and annual reports for the entire span of the committee’s existence, 2003 to the present. Where these records are unavailable, the website should note that absence. (F1, F4, F5, F7, F14)
R3:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee should ensure that all its members are apprised of the rules and regulations governing their activity, and its officers must require compliance with those rules. Rules should be established for addressing the issue of persistent nonattendance. (F2, F3, F6, F7)
F8:
Santa Cruz City Schools Board of Education has not defined the form that the annual report should take.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
The required Parcel Tax Oversight Committee annual report at the end of the fiscal year should be prepared in advance and included in the Board book, presented orally at a Board meeting, distributed to local media, and published on the Santa Cruz City Schools website. (F8)
R8:
Future parcel tax language should be more precise about the specific responsibilities of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee, especially regarding the advisory nature of their oversight, required public reporting, and Brown Act compliance. (F8, F12, F13, F14)
F9:
Administrative and clerical duties have been assigned to the counselors, counseling secretaries, and library staff, who are funded by parcel tax money. The use of parcel tax money to pay for administrative and clerical costs is contrary to the intent of the measure language.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Future parcel tax language should more accurately reflect the intent and priorities of the SCCS regarding spending priorities by including funding percentages where appropriate. (F9, F11)
F10:
Santa Cruz City Schools failed in its obligation to provide annual information regarding the allocation of parcel tax funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Santa Cruz City Schools business office should reconstruct from its financial records the parcel tax expenditures for all the years since the parcel tax was collected and post these on its website. (F10)
F11:
The Board of Education has failed to follow its own explicit commitments for the proportional allocation of parcel tax funds.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Santa Cruz City Schools Board of Education should clarify its position on the percentages for funding priorities to which it committed in 2006, and either explicitly revise those percentages or instruct the District business office to comply with those percentages in its budget. (F11)
R9:
Future parcel tax language should more accurately reflect the intent and priorities of the SCCS regarding spending priorities by including funding percentages where appropriate. (F9, F11)
F12:
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee, Board of Education Trustees, and Santa Cruz City Schools staff disagree concerning the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee’s role in making expenditure recommendations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Future parcel tax language should be more precise about the specific responsibilities of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee, especially regarding the advisory nature of their oversight, required public reporting, and Brown Act compliance. (F8, F12, F13, F14)
F13:
The Board of Education has failed to provide a formal charge to the members of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8:
Future parcel tax language should be more precise about the specific responsibilities of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee, especially regarding the advisory nature of their oversight, required public reporting, and Brown Act compliance. (F8, F12, F13, F14)
R10:
The Santa Cruz City Schools Board of Education should provide the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee with a formal charge. (F13) 15
F14:
The Board of Education has failed to require the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee to comply with the Brown Act. 14
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Santa Cruz City Schools District should reconstruct and make available on its website an institutional historical record of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee’s activities. This record should include but not be limited to the official committee charge, membership, and annual reports for the entire span of the committee’s existence, 2003 to the present. Where these records are unavailable, the website should note that absence. (F1, F4, F5, F7, F14)
R8:
Future parcel tax language should be more precise about the specific responsibilities of the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee, especially regarding the advisory nature of their oversight, required public reporting, and Brown Act compliance. (F8, F12, F13, F14)
R11:
The Santa Cruz City Schools Board of Education should require the Parcel Tax Oversight Committee to comply with the Brown Act. (F14)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Local jurisdictions have not provided adequate emergency shelter to accommodate the vast majority (80%) of the more than 3,500 total homeless persons in Santa Cruz County (using 2013 PIT data).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. (F1F6)
F2:
Despite persistent unmet need, local jurisdictions have neither increased nor planned to increase the number of emergency shelter beds and services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. (F1F6)
F3:
The effectiveness of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter is limited by its reliance on the National Guard Armory facility. 12
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. (F3, F4)
F4:
The absence of a backup plan to replace the National Guard Armory threatens the continuing existence of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should seek a more permanent, accessible and expandable site for the North County Emergency Winter Shelter program. (F3, F4)
F5:
Insufficient capacity of emergency shelters limits their potential use as an entry point to the planned coordinated entry system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. (F1F6)
F6:
Insufficient numbers of personnel and case managers at the emergency shelters limit the services that can be provided to homeless individuals.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should develop plans to provide increased emergency shelter on a priority basis to the most vulnerable populations first, including families, youth, women, and the elderly. (F1F6)
R3:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate more funds for additional case managers for the local emergency shelters. (F6)
F7:
Insufficient number of staff dedicated to grant writing results in missed grant funding opportunities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola and Scotts Valley should allocate additional staff to seek more grant funding for emergency shelters. (F7)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The consolidation of Fire and Emergency Medical System dispatch services at the Santa Cruz Regional 911 center and mutual aid agreements between districts have created an efficient virtual single service district for those services in the entire county.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Branciforte Fire Protection District should negotiate with Scotts Valley Fire Protection District for the provision of managerial oversight of administration and operations by Scotts Valley. (F1, F2, F9, F10)
R7:
The four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley should further align their policies and procedures in anticipation of future consolidation. (F1, F2, F11)
F2:
Shared services between fire districts have improved response times, training, and services across the county. 12
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Branciforte Fire Protection District should negotiate with Scotts Valley Fire Protection District for the provision of managerial oversight of administration and operations by Scotts Valley. (F1, F2, F9, F10)
R7:
The four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley should further align their policies and procedures in anticipation of future consolidation. (F1, F2, F11)
F3:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District did not take advantage of the opportunity to pursue consolidation when the Aptos Fire Chief retired in 2014.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District should work together to merge and form a MidCounty Fire Protection District. (F1F4, F7)
F4:
The differences in pay scales and benefits between Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District are issues that must be addressed prior to consolidation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District should work together to merge and form a MidCounty Fire Protection District. (F1F4, F7)
F5:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District have a common problem resulting from excessive and unreasonable Public Records Act requests. These requests have negatively impacted the daily administration, budgets and operations of the districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District should create policies for receiving and responding to PRA requests. (F5) 13
F6:
The lack of enforced policies and procedures regarding conflicts of interest and board member interactions in district operations, has interfered with the ability of the Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District to consider further shared services or consolidation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District should work together to merge and form a MidCounty Fire Protection District. (F1F4, F7)
R4:
Central Fire Protection District should adopt and enforce clear and comprehensive conflict of interest regulations for Board Members. (F6)
F7:
The joint Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District Cooperative Fire Prevention Program is successful and could benefit the county if made permanent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The governing bodies of Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District and Central Fire Protection District should adopt the three year plan for the Cooperative Fire Prevention Program. (F7)
F8:
Expansion of the Central Fire Protection District’s fleet services department is needed to allow a larger number of districts to contract with this service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Central Fire Protection District should explore expansion of its fleet maintenance services to support contracts with a greater number of local fire districts. (F8)
F9:
Branciforte Fire Protection District’s lack of a tangible reserve or funds to pay their Fire Chief leaves them vulnerable to insolvency, which would leave Branciforte residents without a fire district.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Branciforte Fire Protection District should negotiate with Scotts Valley Fire Protection District for the provision of managerial oversight of administration and operations by Scotts Valley. (F1, F2, F9, F10)
F10:
Scotts Valley Fire Protection District is the most logical partner for consolidation or shared services with Branciforte Fire Protection District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Branciforte Fire Protection District should negotiate with Scotts Valley Fire Protection District for the provision of managerial oversight of administration and operations by Scotts Valley. (F1, F2, F9, F10)
F11:
The differences in policies and procedures of the four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley inhibit future consolidation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The four fire protection districts in the San Lorenzo Valley should further align their policies and procedures in anticipation of future consolidation. (F1, F2, F11)
F12:
The continued success of Santa Cruz Regional 911 is dependant upon the successful replacement of the Computer Aided Dispatch software.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Santa Cruz Regional 911 should replace the Computer Aided Dispatch software prior to the 2017/18 fiscal year. (F12)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The public has not received a clear, understandable accounting of the County of Santa Cruz’s total annual retirement costs and obligations in a single summary document.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrative Office to provide an annual summary of all retirement costs and obligations starting in FY 2016/17.
R2:
The annual summary of the total retirement costs and obligations should be identified in the county budget in clear and understandable language.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.