Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2017-2018
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 (15)
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The lack of effective communication between the District and the community regarding the administration of the Assessment District has caused public concern regarding the timing and implementation of Assessment District projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3) Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 49 Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By San Lorenzo Valley 90 Days Water District Board F1 – F3 R1 – R8 August 29, 2018 of Directors Abbreviations and Definitions ● CIP: Capital Improvement Program (also called Capital Improvement Plan) ● CTV: Community Television of Santa Cruz County ● Gantt Chart: “A Gantt chart is a visual view of tasks scheduled over time.”[105] ● Glyphosate: “Glyphosate is an herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.”[106] ● LADOC: Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee ● LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Cruz County ● LCWD: Lompico County Water District ● Resolution 953-A: LAFCO resolution (also called the “merger agreement”) approving SLVWD’s annexation of LCWD (also called the “merger”) ● SCADA: Supervisory control and data acquisition system ● SLVWD: San Lorenzo Valley Water District, also referred to in this report as “the District”
F2:
The District has not provided adequate authority, guidance, training, or support to the Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee (LADOC) to ensure that the committee can fulfill its assessment district oversight responsibilities, thus reducing transparency and accountability to the public.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make mental health liaisons available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F2)
R6:
The District should provide formal training about assessment districts to LADOC members and all others involved in the administration of the Assessment District. (F2)
F3:
Lack of effective District communication practices has reduced public access to the decision-making process, and contributed to acrimony and on-going relationship challenges with the community, causing stress on elected officials and staff, as well as frustration among ratepayers.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
R7:
The District should record all Board and committee meetings, and post the recordings online for public access. (F3)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3) Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 49 Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By San Lorenzo Valley 90 Days Water District Board F1 – F3 R1 – R8 August 29, 2018 of Directors Abbreviations and Definitions ● CIP: Capital Improvement Program (also called Capital Improvement Plan) ● CTV: Community Television of Santa Cruz County ● Gantt Chart: “A Gantt chart is a visual view of tasks scheduled over time.”[105] ● Glyphosate: “Glyphosate is an herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.”[106] ● LADOC: Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee ● LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Cruz County ● LCWD: Lompico County Water District ● Resolution 953-A: LAFCO resolution (also called the “merger agreement”) approving SLVWD’s annexation of LCWD (also called the “merger”) ● SCADA: Supervisory control and data acquisition system ● SLVWD: San Lorenzo Valley Water District, also referred to in this report as “the District”
Additional Recommendations
33
Not linked to specific findings.
R36:
Grand Jury interviews.
R37:
Grand Jury interviews. Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 53
R38:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, pp 10-11. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=10
R39:
SLVWD. 2016. “San Lorenzo Valley Water District: SLVWD Meeting: 10-20-16.” Community TV of Santa Cruz County (CTV) video, 105:45 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=293570
R40:
Grand Jury interviews.
R41:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R42:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R43:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R44:
Grand Jury interviews.
R45:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R46:
Grand Jury interviews.
R47:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R48:
Michael J. Freitas. March 22, 2016. “Assessment District No. 2016-01, Lompico County Water District, Santa Cruz, State of California, Engineering Report for Assessment District No. 2016-01, Merger with San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Lompico County Water District, County of Santa Cruz,” p 9. http://slvwd.com/lompico/EngineersReport3-22-16.pdf#page=11
R49:
SLVWD. March 9, 2017. “Assessment District No. 2016-1: Gantt Chart.”Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, p 4. http://slvwd.com/lompico/3.9.17%20LADOC%20with%20backup.pdf#page=4
R50:
District Manager. Nov 16, 2017. “SLVWD CIP Draft.” SLVWD Revised Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 57. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=158
R51:
District Manager. November 16, 2017. “Estimate of Cash Flow for AD16-1, Lompico Assessment District November 2017.” SLVWD Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 55. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=156
R52:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, p 4. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=4
R53:
Grand Jury interviews.
R54:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. “Resolution 8: Support of Merger Between San Lorenzo Valley Water District and Lompico County Water District.” Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, p 151. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2016/10-20- 2016/2016.10.20.BoDAgenda%20with%20backup.pdf#page=151 Published May 31, 2018 5 4 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
R55:
Grand Jury interviews.
R56:
Local Agency Formation Commission. August 6, 2014. “Making Determinations and Ordering Protest Proceedings of Territory Designated as the Lompico Reorganization LAFCO Resolution No. 953-A,” section 7(B), p 2. http://santacruzlafco.org/Library/Res%20953- A%20Final%20for%20web.pdf#page=2
R57:
Task Force on Bond Accountability. 2015. “Task Force Final Report,” p 13. California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf#page=13
R58:
Mark Campbell. August 3, 2017. “Bond Accountability: How to Make it an Everyday Thing.” California State Association of Counties. http://www.counties.org/csac-bulletin-article/bond-accountability-how-make-it- everyday-thing
R59:
Task Force on Bond Accountability (TFBA). December 14, 2015. “Task Force Final Report.” California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf
R60:
San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA). October 21, 2011. “Oversight Committee Best Practices.” SDCTA. http://www.sdcta.org/assets/files/Board%20Approved%202011%20Oversight%2 0Committee%20Best%20Practices%20w.out%20Appendices.pdf
R61:
California League of Bond Oversight Committees (CaLBOC). 2009. “Best Practices, Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee Operation Standards.” San Mateo County Office of Education. http://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/about-smcoe/superintendents-office/citizens- bond-oversight/BestPractices_5.09.pdf
R62:
City of San Diego. 2008. “North Park Maintenance Assessment District (NPMAD) Advisory Committee Bylaws.” NPMAD, as amended March 10, 2008. https://npmaddotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/mad-bylaws-amended-03-10- 08.pdf
R63:
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). 2011. “Citizen Oversight Committee Bylaws.” TAM, as amended October 27, 2011. http://2b0kd44aw6tb3js4ja3jprp6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/doc-reports/citizenss-oversight-committee/4444.pdf
R64:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R65:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R66:
Little Hoover Commission. 2009. “Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight,” pp xiii-xiv. http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/197/Report197.pdf#page=18
R67:
Grand Jury interviews.
R68:
Grand Jury interviews. Published May 31, 2018
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
Most respondents to the 2015-16 Grand Jury investigations fulfilled or partially fulfilled the commitments they made to analyze a recommendation within six months, or to implement a recommendation at a specified time in the future.
F2:
The Board of Supervisors fulfilled its commitment to provide a summary of retirement costs and obligations in the Management Discussion and Analysis section of the CAFR.
F3:
The Board of Supervisors fulfilled its commitment to provide estimated pension costs and obligations in clear and understandable language in the 2018-19 Proposed Budget through an online version.
F4:
The Board of Supervisors and the Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled their commitments to fill all MHAB Board vacancies and to train both incoming and continuing members.
F5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled its commitment to hold annual strategy meetings and address strategic plans and priorities.
F6:
The Board of Supervisors and Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled their commitments to make more meeting materials and services information available online.
F7:
The Soquel Union Elementary School District did not provide documentation confirming that it had analyzed the Grand Jury’s recommendation within six months; however, in 2018 it took steps to address the complaint form issue identified in the recommendation.
F8:
The Board of Supervisors followed through on its commitments to analyze Grand Jury recommendations related to Domestic Violence Commission meeting times and reporting practices.
F9:
A District Attorney designee met with the presiding judge of the Superior Court to explore the re-establishment of a Domestic Violence Court, thus fulfilling the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to do so.
F10:
The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office analyzed the Grand Jury’s Facility Risk Report
F11:
The Sheriff-Coroner‘s Office fulfilled its commitment to build a fence to enclose the entire Main Jail.
F12:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office honored their commitments to make changes to the September 2016 provider contract for medical services for County detention facilities.
F13:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office fulfilled their commitment to do a Title 15 inspection of the Main Jail in 2016. Published June 27, 2018 1 22 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
F14:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office confirmed that the Main Jail was in compliance with Title 15 Detoxification Treatment requirements in 2016.
F15:
The Felton Fire Protection District’s submission to the current Grand Jury of written policy and procedures regarding the acquisition and sale of real property contradicts the facts established in the 2016 Grand Jury report that the District lacked such documents, and is inconsistent with the District’s 2016 commitment to the public to adopt such policies and procedures in the future.
F16:
The Felton Fire Protection District has not yet fulfilled its commitment to post policies and procedures on its website.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
R7 Inspection Report[14] [15] Coroner Felton Fire Felton Fire Protection District’s Protection District – R3 Surplus Land Sale[16] [17] Board of Directors Investigation In this section we summarize the findings, recommendations, and responses from each 2015-16 Grand Jury investigative report listed in Table A. We then analyze the documents submitted to the current Grand Jury to determine what actions, if any, recipients ultimately took with respect to the 2016 recommendations. Figure 1 and Figure 2 provide summary views of how respondents fulfilled their commitments to analyze or implement Grand Jury recommendations as of June 2018. Published June 27, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 113 Report: “Reporting Santa Cruz County Retirement Costs and Obligations” This 2015-16 report focused on the presentation of information on Santa Cruz County retirement costs and obligations, and made the following recommendations:
R2:
– Supervisors Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board[4] [5] [6] Mental Health – R2, R5, R8 Advisory Board Soquel Elementary School Board: SUESD Board of
R3:
The District Attorney (or their designee) should be the Domestic Violence Commission’s chair for at least the first year. The BOS committed to implementing these two recommendations in the future, although it did not provide a timeframe for implementation. During the three January - March 2017 meetings, the DVC working group considered these two recommendations. The ordinance drafted to address Recommendations 1 and 4 also addressed Recommendations 2 and 3 – it proposed to streamline the membership and make the District Attorney (or a designee) the first chair. The BOS has not adopted the draft ordinance as of June 2018, as it is still assessing Commission procedural issues.[28]
R4:
– Full Disclosure Not Optional[7] [8] Trustees Santa Cruz County Domestic Board of Violence Commission: Missing In R1, R4 R2, R3, R5 Supervisors Action[9] [10] Board of – R6, R7 Supervisors Another Death in Our Jail[11] [12] [13] Sheriff-Coroner – R5, R6, R7 Jails in Transition: 2015-2016 Jails Sheriff-
R5:
The Mental Health Advisory Board should hold an annual meeting to establish and evaluate strategic goals, prioritize those goals by focusing on problem areas, and establish committees to develop plans for problem resolution. The MHAB responded that it would hold annual meetings to evaluate and prioritize strategic goals. The MHAB held a strategy meeting in February 2017. It provided the Grand Jury with materials demonstrating that it had created strategies and priorities for resolving problem areas. The MHAB held a similar meeting in June 2018. The 2015-16 Grand Jury also found that the MHAB did not have an effective mechanism for sharing information on available programs and services with the community or local mental health professionals.
R6:
The Health Services Agency should complete the annual 2016 Title 15 inspection and identify if the facility is in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements (Title 15, Section 1213), as required by state law. In their responses, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner committed to implementing Recommendation 6 in the future, indicating that the Health Services Agency would inspect the Main Jail by the end of 2016. Published June 27, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 117 The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office provided the 2017-18 Grand Jury with confirmation that a 2016 Title 15 inspection had taken place and that the Main Jail was in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements (Section 1213) in 2016.[32] Report: “Jails in Transition: 2015-2016 Jails Inspection Report” This 2015-16 report found that the Crisis Intervention Team’s Facility Risk Report lacked specific recommendations for inmates. The Facility Risk Report is a daily report for staff that provides alerts for inmates deemed “at-risk for suicide, escape, assault, medical issues, and other destabilizing behaviors.”[33]
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. In their responses to Recommendations 5 and 7, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner committed to changes to the medical services provider contract scheduled to go into effect in September 2016. The September 2016 contract eliminated the clause requiring the service provider to pay up to $15,000 per inmate admitted to a hospital[29] and added language that required CMA-IMQ accreditation.[30] CFMG received accreditation for the period June 21, 2017 through June 21, 2019.[31] The 2015-16 Grand Jury report also found that the Health Services Agency’s 2015 inspection did not address whether the Main Jail was in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
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. The MHAB responded that this recommendation would be implemented in the future. The MHAB engaged with the public, beginning in the summer of 2017, through a public town hall meeting in August 2017; a televised presentation of the MHAB’s 2016-17 biennial report to the BOS in April 2018;[22] and online postings of monthly summaries from the Director of Behavioral Health.[23] In sum the BOS and MHAB have fulfilled their commitments to address the 2015-16 Grand Jury’s recommendations. Report: “Soquel Union Elementary School Board – Full Disclosure Not Optional” This 2015-16 report found that the Soquel Union Elementary School District (SUESD) did not provide guidance on how to file a complaint. The report made the following recommendation:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
Metro experienced an anticipated revenue reduction of $26 million from 2008–2014 and had to use its reserves to fill the shortfall. This is not sustainable.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Metro should conduct a limited study to determine if reduced fares would generate additional revenue through increased ridership. (F1, F4, F7)
R7:
Metro should adopt and adhere to a budget that does not deplete reserves for operating expenses. (F1)
F2:
Metro grant writing has been insufficient and ineffective.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
Metro should identify and secure additional funding sources. (F2, F8, F9, F10)
R6:
Metro should expand their grant writing program. (F2)
F3:
Many Metro Board members lack transit management knowledge of best practices or business experience, leaving them ill-equipped to address Metro's declining revenues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Metro Board should include members who have marketing, business management, or finance experience. (F3, F5, F6)
F4:
Metro use of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) industry best practices is limited.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Metro should conduct a limited study to determine if reduced fares would generate additional revenue through increased ridership. (F1, F4, F7)
R16:
Metro should provide WiFi connection on more buses. (F4)
F5:
There are no experience qualifications for Metro Board members in its bylaws, and the Board lacks the range of experience or training necessary to improve Metro’s performance.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Metro Board should include members who have marketing, business management, or finance experience. (F3, F5, F6)
R4:
The Metro Board, Metro management, and the Metro Advisory Committee should meet jointly on a regular basis. (F5, F6)
F6:
Metro does not have joint meetings that include the Board, Metro management, and the Metro Advisory Committee. Better and more frequent communication and coordination between these bodies could improve decision making.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Metro Board should include members who have marketing, business management, or finance experience. (F3, F5, F6)
R4:
The Metro Board, Metro management, and the Metro Advisory Committee should meet jointly on a regular basis. (F5, F6)
F7:
Manual collection of route performance data does not allow for optimal use of the HASTUS system.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Metro should conduct a limited study to determine if reduced fares would generate additional revenue through increased ridership. (F1, F4, F7)
R15:
Metro should conduct a limited trial using AVL and HASTUS to explore bus route efficiency. (F7)
F8:
Metro partnerships with UCSC and Cabrillo College have contributed significantly to Metro revenues, and Metro would benefit from additional community partnerships.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
Metro should identify and secure additional funding sources. (F2, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Metro should consider pursuing additional private and government partnership programs, such as those with UCSC and Cabrillo College. (F8)
F9:
Metro marketing functions are handled inefficiently, in significant part due to an unfilled marketing manager position. Marketing must be more than just selling advertising on buses.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Metro should redefine the Marketing Manager position as Director of Business Development and fund it. (F9, F10)
R5:
Metro should identify and secure additional funding sources. (F2, F8, F9, F10)
F10:
Metro lacks a business development manager. Currently, business development responsibilities are distributed across the organization, and are not implemented or effective.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Metro should redefine the Marketing Manager position as Director of Business Development and fund it. (F9, F10)
R5:
Metro should identify and secure additional funding sources. (F2, F8, F9, F10)
F11:
Metro design standards for bus stops and shelters have not been consistently implemented, which may negatively impact ridership.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Metro should create a bus stop sponsorship program that underwrites construction of bus stops in accordance with Metro’s design standards. (F11)
F12:
Metro bus seats are difficult to clean and sanitize, which may negatively impact ridership.
Related Recommendations (3)
R10:
Metro should improve cleanliness at transit facilities. (F12, F16)
R11:
Metro should improve maintenance at transit facilities. (F12, F15, F16)
R14:
Metro should use easily cleanable materials for bus seats. (F12)
F13:
The lack of overnight parking at bus facilities may be a deterrent to potential riders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Metro should establish overnight parking at the Scotts Valley Cavallaro Transit Center for riders. (F13)
F14:
Metro’s CNG bus engines break down sooner than expected, resulting in accelerated expenses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Metro should evaluate cost-effective alternatives to the CNG bus powertrain. (F14)
F15:
Metro transit centers are deteriorating and in disrepair, which may negatively impact ridership.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Metro should improve maintenance at transit facilities. (F12, F15, F16)
F16:
Metro transit centers are not clean, which may negatively impact ridership.
Related Recommendations (2)
R10:
Metro should improve cleanliness at transit facilities. (F12, F16)
R11:
Metro should improve maintenance at transit facilities. (F12, F15, F16)
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Inmates are kept at Water Street Jail for medical reasons alone when they are otherwise eligible for the increased services and programming at Rountree. This denies programming to an otherwise-eligible inmate that may increase their ability to succeed upon community reentry.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Office should make the necessary changes to allow inmates with chronic medical problems to be housed at Rountree. (F1)
F2:
The Crisis Intervention Team keeps notes in inmate records, but not minutes of meetings or a summary of daily record changes. Without a meeting summary, there is no documentation of continuum of care and context for decision making.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Crisis Intervention Team should produce and review minutes of their meetings. (F2)
F3:
The Sheriff’s Custody Manual includes a general description of a safety cell’s allowable use. This results in the inappropriate housing of inmates in cell O13.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Custody Manual Policy sections 517.1 and 517.2 should be modified to avoid inappropriate housing of inmates in detox or medically at risk. (F3)
F4:
Long term inmates at Water Street may suffer from Vitamin D deficiencies due to lack of exposure to natural sunlight. Medical staff have not tested inmates for possible Vitamin D deficiencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Sheriff’s Office should test whether any long-term or at-risk inmates at Water Street are Vitamin D deficient. (F4)
F5:
Water Street, a maximum security facility, has no means of detecting non-metal contraband other than physically searching an inmate. This increases the chance of dangerous items being brought into the facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Sheriff’s Office should review and implement current technology available for contraband detection. (F5)
F6:
The empty Blaine Street facility indicates a lack of long-range facility planning and coordination.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Sheriff’s Office should create a strategic long-range facilities management plan, including management of multiple funding sources. (F6)
F7:
When asked about program effectiveness and measurements of success locally, staff were unable to provide scorecards, analytics, or follow-up information on recidivism or success. This impacts their programs and future funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Law enforcement should create, use, and publish scorecards to measure the local success of inmate programs. (F7)
F8:
AB109 prison realignment is making it difficult to maintain adequate firefighting crews at Ben Lomond Conservation Camp.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Sheriff needs to be proactive with placing Boarders, qualified inmates from the county jail system, at the fire camp when appropriate. (F8, F9)
F9:
The county “Boarder Program” at the Ben Lomond Conservation Camp is less costly to the county than housing inmates in the county jail system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Sheriff needs to be proactive with placing Boarders, qualified inmates from the county jail system, at the fire camp when appropriate. (F8, F9)
F10:
There is significantly less programming at Ben Lomond Conservation Camp than in the other facilities that we visited, which may impact inmates’ post-release success.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
CDCR should provide in-person help with GED studies to benefit Ben Lomond Fire Camp inmates. (F10)
F11:
The remote location of the Ben Lomond Conservation Camp impacts emergency medical services for inmates and staff. Current county medical protocol does not allow staff on site to store or administer Narcan or Epinephrine.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Narcan nasal spray and epinephrine auto-injectors should be available, along with training on when and how to use them. (F11)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
In a threat situation, timely and specific communication from the school to the community can reduce fear, anxiety, anger, and frustration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County Superintendent of Schools should advocate school districts inform parents and guardians on how and when they will be contacted in the event of a threat. (F1)
F2:
Confusion over the disclosure of protected information regarding juveniles has been a barrier to the timely exchange of vital information between school districts and law enforcement, although FERPA permits disclosure of juvenile student information to law enforcement without parental consent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Office of Education (COE) and the County Sheriff's Office (CSO) should advocate that the threat assessment plan for each school district has a written agreement with law enforcement in which restricted information may be exchanged during the investigation of a threat. (F2)
F3:
Threat assessment is a necessary part of the comprehensive school safety plan, but very little direct guidance has been provided to school districts in how to go about doing it.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The COE and the CSO should collaborate to develop a plan in which all school districts are prepared and capable of assessing a threat of targeted school violence. (F3, F5–F7)
F4:
Investigating a threat may involve actions that can only be done by law enforcement, necessitating coordination and collaboration in formulating and implementing a threat assessment plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County Sheriff and the County Superintendent of Schools should act as boundary spanners to facilitate collaboration between the school districts and law enforcement in assessing threats. (F4)
F5:
Seven of the ten districts have a specific threat assessment plan; those districts without a plan are less able to respond effectively to threats. All of these reported that local law enforcement was aware of their plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The COE and the CSO should collaborate to develop a plan in which all school districts are prepared and capable of assessing a threat of targeted school violence. (F3, F5–F7)
F6:
Only one school district had a threat assessment plan that was created with the help of law enforcement, leaving all other districts at a disadvantage in addressing threats.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The COE and the CSO should collaborate to develop a plan in which all school districts are prepared and capable of assessing a threat of targeted school violence. (F3, F5–F7)
R5:
The CSO and Chiefs of Police should ensure a law enforcement representative, preferably a School Resource Officer, be made available to school districts drafting or revising a threat assessment plan. (F6, F8)
F7:
Three of the four districts with a single school lack the personnel to adequately assemble a threat assessment team.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The COE and the CSO should collaborate to develop a plan in which all school districts are prepared and capable of assessing a threat of targeted school violence. (F3, F5–F7)
R7:
The COE should advocate each school district either has or has access to a multidisciplinary threat assessment team, including a representative from law enforcement. (F7, F9)
F8:
All threat assessment teams had training in the 2015-16 school year, but not all districts attended a professional threat assessment training held in the spring of 2017.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
The CSO and Chiefs of Police should ensure a law enforcement representative, preferably a School Resource Officer, be made available to school districts drafting or revising a threat assessment plan. (F6, F8)
R6:
The County Superintendent of Schools should advocate each school district receives periodic training in assessing threats of targeted school violence. (F8)
F9:
Countywide, only two of 11 SROs were included as members of a threat assessment team.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The COE should advocate each school district either has or has access to a multidisciplinary threat assessment team, including a representative from law enforcement. (F7, F9)
F10:
Not all local law enforcement agencies have personnel trained in assessing threats of school violence, leaving them less able to assist schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The County Sheriff and the Chiefs of Police should ensure their respective law enforcement agencies attend periodic training in assessing threats of targeted school violence. (F10)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The lack of a complete, comprehensive, and updated list of all Measure L projects planned, completed, or approved by the Trustees, makes it impossible for the public to be informed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The District, under the direction of the Trustees, should regularly provide the public and the COC a project list showing original and amended Measure L projects. (F1, F10)
F2:
The COC has not presented to the Trustees in public session a complete Annual Report for Measure L as of May 2017, in violation of state law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The COC should comply with California Education Code section 15280(b) and deliver annual reports to the Trustees at public meetings. (F2)
F3:
The COC has not received adequate training or information to fulfill its role.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The District Trustees should provide the COC a comprehensive orientation program for new members and annual updates for returning members. (F3)
R5:
The District should provide COC members a Measure L handbook detailing committee procedures, protocols, and responsibilities. (F3)
F4:
The District's Maintenance, Operations & Facilities Department has not provided other district departments, school sites, the COC, or Trustees updated scheduling reports that meet industry standards for any project, leading to system inefficiency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The District should provide the COC and Trustees a scheduling report of all Measure L activities depicting project milestones and sequential activity dependencies. (F4)
F5:
The District has not presented the COC or Trustees a composite change order list with a cumulative total cost for each site and project, leaving them unable to properly oversee the bond.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The District should provide the Trustees and COC a cumulative, quarterly change order list, including budget impacts by project and by site. (F5)
F6:
The COC and Trustees are unable to oversee the bond due to the District’s failure to provide a timely financial summary of the bond’s status by site, or a cumulative total cost for Measure L projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The District should comply with California Education Code section 15278 by providing to the Trustees and COC a comprehensive Measure L financial report, updated quarterly, and including it in their Annual Report. (F6, F7, F9, F10)
F7:
The COC and the District have had no discussion about cost savings with those designing and implementing Measure L projects, limiting the COC’s oversight.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The District should comply with California Education Code section 15278 by providing to the Trustees and COC a comprehensive Measure L financial report, updated quarterly, and including it in their Annual Report. (F6, F7, F9, F10)
R8:
The COC and the Trustees should meet at least quarterly to discuss recommendations for reducing costs in accordance with COC bylaws and the California Education Code section 15278(b). (F7)
F8:
The COC in its official capacity has visited only two project sites in the past four years to inspect Measure L work progress, failing to adequately inform itself about the status of the projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The COC should regularly make on-site inspections of Measure L projects. (F8)
F9:
Trustees and the COC cannot properly manage the bond because they do not know how much money remains to finish Measure L projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The District should comply with California Education Code section 15278 by providing to the Trustees and COC a comprehensive Measure L financial report, updated quarterly, and including it in their Annual Report. (F6, F7, F9, F10)
F10:
The COC is not informed of all changes to the projects listed in the voter’s pamphlet, undermining their oversight and reporting responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The District, under the direction of the Trustees, should regularly provide the public and the COC a project list showing original and amended Measure L projects. (F1, F10)
R3:
The District should comply with California Education Code section 15278 by providing to the Trustees and COC a comprehensive Measure L financial report, updated quarterly, and including it in their Annual Report. (F6, F7, F9, F10)
F11:
Bond reporting may be greatly improved once the District’s new accounting and business software is implemented.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The June 18, 2014, SUESD Board minutes do not record that there was an opportunity for public comment prior to the superintendent’s evaluation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SUESD Board should record in the minutes the closed session agenda items that were discussed and any actions taken, including taking no action, on those items. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
F2:
The June 18, 2014 and June 3, 2015 SUESD Board minutes do not record that the superintendent’s evaluation was discussed in closed session.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SUESD Board should record in the minutes the closed session agenda items that were discussed and any actions taken, including taking no action, on those items. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
F3:
The 2015 and 2016 SUESD Board minutes do not record whether the Board offered the public a chance to speak before closed sessions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The SUESD Board should demonstrate its compliance with CGC §54954.3(a), CEC §35145.5, and its Bylaw 9323 to give the public an opportunity to comment by recording this offering in the minutes. (F3)
F4:
In 2015 and 2016, closed session items were rarely recorded in the minutes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SUESD Board should record in the minutes the closed session agenda items that were discussed and any actions taken, including taking no action, on those items. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
F5:
In 2015, 2016, and the first two months of 2017, the SUESD Board repeatedly used the statement “Nothing to report out of closed session.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SUESD Board should record in the minutes the closed session agenda items that were discussed and any actions taken, including taking no action, on those items. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
F6:
The Board has met twice in closed session after adjourning open session.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board should comply with CGC §54957.7.(a), CGC §54957.7.(b), CGC §54957.7.(c) by not meeting in closed session after adjourning open session. (F6)
F7:
The Board, in adopting their Governance Handbook, has shown increased acceptance of public input in the direction of the district by including an avenue for requesting items to be added to the agenda.
F8:
In 2015, 2016, and the first two months of 2017, the SUESD Board minutes did not record that the Board has conducted a self-evaluation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The SUESD Board should comply with its Bylaw 9400 by addressing in public session its self-evaluation, including whether or not the District’s goals for the previous year have been achieved. (F8)
F9:
The SUESD Board has not reviewed or revised the responsibilities and duties of the superintendent at any time between September 2001 and 2016.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The SUESD Board should conduct an official review and update of the criteria for evaluating their only employee, the superintendent. (F9)
F10:
The SUESD Board has been using an incorrect template for its agenda for at least the past six years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The SUESD Board should comply with CGC §54954.3 by correcting its agenda template to reflect accurate times, locations, and content for meetings. (F10)
F11:
The agenda template announces conflicting times for the convening of public meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board’s agenda should reflect that Board meetings begin with the Call to Order. (F11)
F12:
The agenda template does not advise the public of its opportunity to pull items from the consent agenda for comment prior to the adoption of the agenda.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Board should advise the public of its right to pull a Consent Agenda item for comment prior to adopting the agenda. (F12)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Elections in Santa Cruz County are run fairly and conscientiously, with numerous procedures and safeguards that minimize the likelihood of fraud or systemic errors. Although minor problems occurred, we consider these inevitable given the number of people and the complexity of the process, and they were detected or reported and remedied expeditiously.
F2:
Most equipment used to conduct the election is old, much of it nearing or past its useful life. This includes voting machines and electronic and mechanical vote counting systems. Spare parts are increasingly hard to find.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Elections Department should continue to be proactive in evaluating voting systems that are safe, efficient, and available. (F2–F5, F7)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should begin the process of identifying and budgeting the requisite funds for replacement of election equipment once it is certified. (F2–F5)
F3:
Santa Cruz County uses a state certified system that meets state standards. Beyond keeping some key systems offline, this equipment does not implement adequate computer security measures.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Elections Department should continue to be proactive in evaluating voting systems that are safe, efficient, and available. (F2–F5, F7)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should begin the process of identifying and budgeting the requisite funds for replacement of election equipment once it is certified. (F2–F5)
F4:
Santa Cruz County limits physical access to the ballots and the machinery used to process the ballots and conducts comprehensive audits both before and after every election.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Elections Department should continue to be proactive in evaluating voting systems that are safe, efficient, and available. (F2–F5, F7)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should begin the process of identifying and budgeting the requisite funds for replacement of election equipment once it is certified. (F2–F5)
F5:
Voting equipment that the county would select to replace its aging infrastructure has not yet been certified. When the certified replacement equipment becomes available, it is not clear when funds might be provided.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Elections Department should continue to be proactive in evaluating voting systems that are safe, efficient, and available. (F2–F5, F7)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should begin the process of identifying and budgeting the requisite funds for replacement of election equipment once it is certified. (F2–F5)
F6:
Re-use of USB drives on the offline vote collection systems, after being attached to an internet-connected system, is a possible avenue to compromise the offline systems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
In order to protect the integrity of the count, once USB drives or other equipment have been connected to the county network, they should never be reattached to the offline vote counting systems. (F6)
F7:
While currently not being considered in Santa Cruz County, the future possibility of internet voting is a concern due to the inability to ensure the security and anonymity of the vote.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Elections Department should continue to be proactive in evaluating voting systems that are safe, efficient, and available. (F2–F5, F7)
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
As promised in their responses to the 2016-17 Grand Jury report, the COE and CSO collaborated with local law enforcement agencies to produce a thorough and well-written Countywide Threat Assessment Plan.
F2:
The Plan’s detailed flow chart, assessment protocol, and related documents will be valuable resources for school districts to use in threat situations.
F3:
The Santa Cruz County Professional Development Plan for School Safety demonstrates the COE and CSO’s commitment to adequately preparing school staff and local law enforcement to respond to future threats in our schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. (F3, F4)
F4:
Neither the Countywide Threat Assessment Plan nor the Professional Development Plan for School Safety explicitly call for rehearsing the threat assessment protocol in a non-threat situation, which may compromise the responders’ readiness in a threat situation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. (F3, F4)
R2:
The COE should mandate rehearsals of the threat assessment process in every school district to improve the schools’ ability to determine the existence of a credible threat before violence actually occurs. (F4)
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
As promised in their responses to the 2016-17 Grand Jury report, the COE and CSO collaborated with local law enforcement agencies to produce a thorough and well-written Countywide Threat Assessment Plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3) Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 49 Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By San Lorenzo Valley 90 Days Water District Board F1 – F3 R1 – R8 August 29, 2018 of Directors Abbreviations and Definitions ● CIP: Capital Improvement Program (also called Capital Improvement Plan) ● CTV: Community Television of Santa Cruz County ● Gantt Chart: “A Gantt chart is a visual view of tasks scheduled over time.”[105] ● Glyphosate: “Glyphosate is an herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.”[106] ● LADOC: Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee ● LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Cruz County ● LCWD: Lompico County Water District ● Resolution 953-A: LAFCO resolution (also called the “merger agreement”) approving SLVWD’s annexation of LCWD (also called the “merger”) ● SCADA: Supervisory control and data acquisition system ● SLVWD: San Lorenzo Valley Water District, also referred to in this report as “the District”
F2:
The Plan’s detailed flow chart, assessment protocol, and related documents will be valuable resources for school districts to use in threat situations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The District should provide formal training about assessment districts to LADOC members and all others involved in the administration of the Assessment District. (F2)
F3:
The Santa Cruz County Professional Development Plan for School Safety demonstrates the COE and CSO’s commitment to adequately preparing school staff and local law enforcement to respond to future threats in our schools.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. (F3, F4)
R7:
The District should record all Board and committee meetings, and post the recordings online for public access. (F3)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3) Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 49 Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By San Lorenzo Valley 90 Days Water District Board F1 – F3 R1 – R8 August 29, 2018 of Directors Abbreviations and Definitions ● CIP: Capital Improvement Program (also called Capital Improvement Plan) ● CTV: Community Television of Santa Cruz County ● Gantt Chart: “A Gantt chart is a visual view of tasks scheduled over time.”[105] ● Glyphosate: “Glyphosate is an herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.”[106] ● LADOC: Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee ● LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Cruz County ● LCWD: Lompico County Water District ● Resolution 953-A: LAFCO resolution (also called the “merger agreement”) approving SLVWD’s annexation of LCWD (also called the “merger”) ● SCADA: Supervisory control and data acquisition system ● SLVWD: San Lorenzo Valley Water District, also referred to in this report as “the District”
F4:
Neither the Countywide Threat Assessment Plan nor the Professional Development Plan for School Safety explicitly call for rehearsing the threat assessment protocol in a non-threat situation, which may compromise the responders’ readiness in a threat situation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. (F3, F4)
R2:
The COE should mandate rehearsals of the threat assessment process in every school district to improve the schools’ ability to determine the existence of a credible threat before violence actually occurs. (F4)
F5:
Current dispatch procedures do not distinguish between threatening and non-threatening EDP calls. Making this distinction would create an opportunity for MERT to respond to the 70 percent of 9-1-1 EDP calls that do not involve a threat.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The County Health Services Agency, the County’s five law enforcement agencies, and Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 should develop a dispatch plan that classifies 9-1-1 EDP calls as threatening (the subject presents a danger to others) or nonthreatening (the subject does not present a danger to others). (F5)
R4:
Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 should dispatch MERT with a law enforcement liaison in response to non-threatening 9-1-1 EDP calls. (F5)
F6:
Having a private, for-profit contractor operate the County BHU reduces transparency between the Behavioral Health Department and the people they serve. Published May 17, 2018 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 31
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should conduct a compliance audit of the Telecare facility to investigate the allegations in the NAMI Santa Cruz task force report, post the results of the investigation on the Health Services Agency website, and recommend appropriate changes to performance specifications in any future contract. (F6) Commendation C1. The Grand Jury commends our County’s law enforcement agencies for incorporating the new methodologies set forth in the CIT course and adapting their procedures to those methodologies.
F7:
The Soquel Union Elementary School District did not provide documentation confirming that it had analyzed the Grand Jury’s recommendation within six months; however, in 2018 it took steps to address the complaint form issue identified in the recommendation.
F8:
The Board of Supervisors followed through on its commitments to analyze Grand Jury recommendations related to Domestic Violence Commission meeting times and reporting practices.
F9:
A District Attorney designee met with the presiding judge of the Superior Court to explore the re-establishment of a Domestic Violence Court, thus fulfilling the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to do so.
F10:
The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office analyzed the Grand Jury’s Facility Risk Report
F11:
The Sheriff-Coroner‘s Office fulfilled its commitment to build a fence to enclose the entire Main Jail.
F12:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office honored their commitments to make changes to the September 2016 provider contract for medical services for County detention facilities.
F13:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office fulfilled their commitment to do a Title 15 inspection of the Main Jail in 2016. Published June 27, 2018 1 22 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
F14:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office confirmed that the Main Jail was in compliance with Title 15 Detoxification Treatment requirements in 2016.
F15:
The Felton Fire Protection District’s submission to the current Grand Jury of written policy and procedures regarding the acquisition and sale of real property contradicts the facts established in the 2016 Grand Jury report that the District lacked such documents, and is inconsistent with the District’s 2016 commitment to the public to adopt such policies and procedures in the future.
F16:
The Felton Fire Protection District has not yet fulfilled its commitment to post policies and procedures on its website.
Additional Recommendations
65
Not linked to specific findings.
R36:
Grand Jury interviews.
R37:
Grand Jury interviews. Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 53
R38:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, pp 10-11. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=10
R39:
SLVWD. 2016. “San Lorenzo Valley Water District: SLVWD Meeting: 10-20-16.” Community TV of Santa Cruz County (CTV) video, 105:45 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=293570
R40:
Grand Jury interviews.
R41:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R42:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R43:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R44:
Grand Jury interviews.
R45:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R46:
Grand Jury interviews.
R47:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R48:
Michael J. Freitas. March 22, 2016. “Assessment District No. 2016-01, Lompico County Water District, Santa Cruz, State of California, Engineering Report for Assessment District No. 2016-01, Merger with San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Lompico County Water District, County of Santa Cruz,” p 9. http://slvwd.com/lompico/EngineersReport3-22-16.pdf#page=11
R49:
SLVWD. March 9, 2017. “Assessment District No. 2016-1: Gantt Chart.”Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, p 4. http://slvwd.com/lompico/3.9.17%20LADOC%20with%20backup.pdf#page=4
R50:
District Manager. Nov 16, 2017. “SLVWD CIP Draft.” SLVWD Revised Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 57. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=158
R51:
District Manager. November 16, 2017. “Estimate of Cash Flow for AD16-1, Lompico Assessment District November 2017.” SLVWD Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 55. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=156
R52:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, p 4. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=4
R53:
Grand Jury interviews.
R54:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. “Resolution 8: Support of Merger Between San Lorenzo Valley Water District and Lompico County Water District.” Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, p 151. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2016/10-20- 2016/2016.10.20.BoDAgenda%20with%20backup.pdf#page=151 Published May 31, 2018 5 4 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
R55:
Grand Jury interviews.
R56:
Local Agency Formation Commission. August 6, 2014. “Making Determinations and Ordering Protest Proceedings of Territory Designated as the Lompico Reorganization LAFCO Resolution No. 953-A,” section 7(B), p 2. http://santacruzlafco.org/Library/Res%20953- A%20Final%20for%20web.pdf#page=2
R57:
Task Force on Bond Accountability. 2015. “Task Force Final Report,” p 13. California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf#page=13
R58:
Mark Campbell. August 3, 2017. “Bond Accountability: How to Make it an Everyday Thing.” California State Association of Counties. http://www.counties.org/csac-bulletin-article/bond-accountability-how-make-it- everyday-thing
R59:
Task Force on Bond Accountability (TFBA). December 14, 2015. “Task Force Final Report.” California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf
R60:
San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA). October 21, 2011. “Oversight Committee Best Practices.” SDCTA. http://www.sdcta.org/assets/files/Board%20Approved%202011%20Oversight%2 0Committee%20Best%20Practices%20w.out%20Appendices.pdf
R61:
California League of Bond Oversight Committees (CaLBOC). 2009. “Best Practices, Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee Operation Standards.” San Mateo County Office of Education. http://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/about-smcoe/superintendents-office/citizens- bond-oversight/BestPractices_5.09.pdf
R62:
City of San Diego. 2008. “North Park Maintenance Assessment District (NPMAD) Advisory Committee Bylaws.” NPMAD, as amended March 10, 2008. https://npmaddotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/mad-bylaws-amended-03-10- 08.pdf
R63:
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). 2011. “Citizen Oversight Committee Bylaws.” TAM, as amended October 27, 2011. http://2b0kd44aw6tb3js4ja3jprp6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/doc-reports/citizenss-oversight-committee/4444.pdf
R64:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R65:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R66:
Little Hoover Commission. 2009. “Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight,” pp xiii-xiv. http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/197/Report197.pdf#page=18
R67:
Grand Jury interviews.
R68:
Grand Jury interviews. Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 55
R69:
CaLBOC. 2009. “Best Practices…” (See 61.)
R70:
TFBA. 2015. “Task Force Final Report.” (See 59.)
R71:
SDCTA. 2011. “Oversight Committee Best Practices.” (See 60.)
R72:
CaLBOC. 2009. “Best Practices…” (See 61.)
R73:
City of San Diego. 2008. “...Advisory Committee Bylaws.” (See 62.)
R74:
TAM. 2011. “Citizen Oversight Committee Bylaws.” (See 63.)
R75:
LAFCO. 2014. “...Resolution No. 953-A.” (See 56.)
R76:
SLVWD. 2016. “Resolution No. 39...” (See 3.)
R77:
Lompico County Water District. December 9, 2015. “Resolution No. 2015-1: A Resolution Requesting Approval by the County of Santa Cruz of Proposed Resolution of Intention and Boundary map Under Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code of California.” Resolution 300-2015, pp 13-14. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/Minutes/2015/20151215- 676/PDF/035.pdf#page=13
R78:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. December 15, 2015. “Resolution No. 300-2015: Resolution Approving the Proposed Resolution of Intention and Boundary Map under Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code of California in and for the Lompico County Water District’s Proposed Assessment District No. 2016-1.” Resolution 300-2015, pp 4-5. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/Minutes/2015/20151215- 676/PDF/035.pdf#page=4
R79:
District Manager. April 20, 2017. “Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee.” SLVWD Special Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 14e, p 1. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/4-20- 2017/2017.4.20.BoDAgenda.pdf#page=354
R80:
District Manager. May 11, 2017. “Re: May 11th Meeting Agenda,” Email. Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, p 126. http://www.slvwd.com/lompico/LADOC%20Agenda%2005_11_2017.pdf#page=1 26
R81:
Grand Jury interviews.
R82:
District Manager. 2017. “Re: May 11th Meeting Agenda.” (See 80.)
R83:
SLVWD. June 13, 2017. Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, pp 1-17. http://slvwd.com/lompico/6.13.17%20LADOC%20with%20backup.pdf
R84:
Grand Jury interviews.
R85:
District Manager. 2017. “Discussion and Possible Action…” (See 31.) Published May 31, 2018 5 6 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
R86:
SLVWD. October 19, 2017. “Post Assessment of the Merger with Lompico Water District and Conditions of Lafco Agreement.” Board of Directors Meeting. CTV video discussion of Item 10a starts at 53:25 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=323585
R87:
Cal Gov Code, Title 5, Div. 2, Part 1, Chap. 9. “Meetings.” §54953.5(b). 2010. Accessed February 16, 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum= 54953.5.&lawCode=GOV
R88:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R89:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R90:
SLVWD. January 18, 2018. Board of Directors Meeting. CTV video recording, at approx. 218:44 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=329241
R91:
SLVWD. December 15, 2016. “Objective II; Communications.” Board Policy Manual 2017, p 1. http://www.slvwd.com/BOD_Manual/2017%20Board%20Policy%20Manual.pdf#p age=5
R92:
SLVWD. 2017. Draft Board Policy Manual, p 3 of the November 6, 2017, tracked- changes version. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/OTHER/2017/11-8- 2017%20Admin%20Mtg/2017%20Board%20Policy%20Manual.%20Revised.110 617.docx
R93:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Water district directors take gloves off.” Press Banner, April 27, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/water-district-directors- take-gloves-off/article_c99150e2-2bd0-11e7-8b14-e7638b4073c7.html
R94:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Shouting, kicking interrupt water hearing.” Press Banner, September 29, 2017. http://m.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/eedition/page-pb- cover/page_85ae7959-d335-5d41-a11f-fc7fd9c6de75.html
R95:
Direct observation by Grand Jury members attending the SLVWD Board of Directors Meeting on September 21, 2017.
R96:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Sheriff called to SLVWD meeting.” Press Banner, June 22, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/sheriff-called-to-slvwd- meeting/article_bf89d49a-578e-11e7-9273-4b702fc15453.html
R97:
District Manager. November 16, 2017. “FY1718 Budget Revision Request.” SLVWD Board of Directors Revised Agenda, item 9a, pp 1-4. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=5 Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 57
R98:
SLVWD. November 16, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, p 1. http://slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2017/Minutes%20BoD.11.16.17%20- %20approved.pdf
R99:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “SLVWD won't release letter from Vierra.” Press Banner, April 6, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/slvwd-won-t-release- letter-from-vierra/article_ed0ee7aa-1af5-11e7-8ce0-5fbc1097aad2.html
R100:
Libby Leyden. 2018. “San Lorenzo Valley Water District considers lawsuit against director.” Press Banner, January 31, 2018. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/san-lorenzo-valley-water- district-considers-lawsuit-against-director/article_12879000-06fe-11e8-a68f- 17d3356ceb0a.html
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The 24-hour Crisis Intervention Training course has given law enforcement responders additional tools for dealing with people in crisis, resulting in less use of force.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3) Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 49 Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By San Lorenzo Valley 90 Days Water District Board F1 – F3 R1 – R8 August 29, 2018 of Directors Abbreviations and Definitions ● CIP: Capital Improvement Program (also called Capital Improvement Plan) ● CTV: Community Television of Santa Cruz County ● Gantt Chart: “A Gantt chart is a visual view of tasks scheduled over time.”[105] ● Glyphosate: “Glyphosate is an herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.”[106] ● LADOC: Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee ● LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Cruz County ● LCWD: Lompico County Water District ● Resolution 953-A: LAFCO resolution (also called the “merger agreement”) approving SLVWD’s annexation of LCWD (also called the “merger”) ● SCADA: Supervisory control and data acquisition system ● SLVWD: San Lorenzo Valley Water District, also referred to in this report as “the District”
F2:
Adding more mental health liaisons and increasing their hours of availability would increase the benefit of this program to law enforcement and people in crisis.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make mental health liaisons available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F2)
R6:
The District should provide formal training about assessment districts to LADOC members and all others involved in the administration of the Assessment District. (F2)
F3:
Having law enforcement be the primary responder to non-threatening 9-1-1 EDP calls reduces the overall availability of law enforcement to the community.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
R7:
The District should record all Board and committee meetings, and post the recordings online for public access. (F3)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3) Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 49 Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By San Lorenzo Valley 90 Days Water District Board F1 – F3 R1 – R8 August 29, 2018 of Directors Abbreviations and Definitions ● CIP: Capital Improvement Program (also called Capital Improvement Plan) ● CTV: Community Television of Santa Cruz County ● Gantt Chart: “A Gantt chart is a visual view of tasks scheduled over time.”[105] ● Glyphosate: “Glyphosate is an herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.”[106] ● LADOC: Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee ● LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Cruz County ● LCWD: Lompico County Water District ● Resolution 953-A: LAFCO resolution (also called the “merger agreement”) approving SLVWD’s annexation of LCWD (also called the “merger”) ● SCADA: Supervisory control and data acquisition system ● SLVWD: San Lorenzo Valley Water District, also referred to in this report as “the District”
F4:
The Mobile Emergency Response Team (MERT) is not accessible through 9-1-1, resulting in overuse of law enforcement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
F5:
Current dispatch procedures do not distinguish between threatening and non-threatening EDP calls. Making this distinction would create an opportunity for MERT to respond to the 70 percent of 9-1-1 EDP calls that do not involve a threat.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
R3:
The County Health Services Agency, the County’s five law enforcement agencies, and Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 should develop a dispatch plan that classifies 9-1-1 EDP calls as threatening (the subject presents a danger to others) or nonthreatening (the subject does not present a danger to others). (F5)
R4:
Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 should dispatch MERT with a law enforcement liaison in response to non-threatening 9-1-1 EDP calls. (F5)
F6:
Having a private, for-profit contractor operate the County BHU reduces transparency between the Behavioral Health Department and the people they serve. Published May 17, 2018 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 31
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should conduct a compliance audit of the Telecare facility to investigate the allegations in the NAMI Santa Cruz task force report, post the results of the investigation on the Health Services Agency website, and recommend appropriate changes to performance specifications in any future contract. (F6) Commendation C1. The Grand Jury commends our County’s law enforcement agencies for incorporating the new methodologies set forth in the CIT course and adapting their procedures to those methodologies.
F7:
The Soquel Union Elementary School District did not provide documentation confirming that it had analyzed the Grand Jury’s recommendation within six months; however, in 2018 it took steps to address the complaint form issue identified in the recommendation.
F8:
The Board of Supervisors followed through on its commitments to analyze Grand Jury recommendations related to Domestic Violence Commission meeting times and reporting practices.
F9:
A District Attorney designee met with the presiding judge of the Superior Court to explore the re-establishment of a Domestic Violence Court, thus fulfilling the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to do so.
F10:
The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office analyzed the Grand Jury’s Facility Risk Report
F11:
The Sheriff-Coroner‘s Office fulfilled its commitment to build a fence to enclose the entire Main Jail.
F12:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office honored their commitments to make changes to the September 2016 provider contract for medical services for County detention facilities.
F13:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office fulfilled their commitment to do a Title 15 inspection of the Main Jail in 2016. Published June 27, 2018 1 22 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
F14:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office confirmed that the Main Jail was in compliance with Title 15 Detoxification Treatment requirements in 2016.
F15:
The Felton Fire Protection District’s submission to the current Grand Jury of written policy and procedures regarding the acquisition and sale of real property contradicts the facts established in the 2016 Grand Jury report that the District lacked such documents, and is inconsistent with the District’s 2016 commitment to the public to adopt such policies and procedures in the future.
F16:
The Felton Fire Protection District has not yet fulfilled its commitment to post policies and procedures on its website.
Additional Recommendations
65
Not linked to specific findings.
R36:
Grand Jury interviews.
R37:
Grand Jury interviews. Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 53
R38:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, pp 10-11. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=10
R39:
SLVWD. 2016. “San Lorenzo Valley Water District: SLVWD Meeting: 10-20-16.” Community TV of Santa Cruz County (CTV) video, 105:45 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=293570
R40:
Grand Jury interviews.
R41:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R42:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R43:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R44:
Grand Jury interviews.
R45:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R46:
Grand Jury interviews.
R47:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R48:
Michael J. Freitas. March 22, 2016. “Assessment District No. 2016-01, Lompico County Water District, Santa Cruz, State of California, Engineering Report for Assessment District No. 2016-01, Merger with San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Lompico County Water District, County of Santa Cruz,” p 9. http://slvwd.com/lompico/EngineersReport3-22-16.pdf#page=11
R49:
SLVWD. March 9, 2017. “Assessment District No. 2016-1: Gantt Chart.”Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, p 4. http://slvwd.com/lompico/3.9.17%20LADOC%20with%20backup.pdf#page=4
R50:
District Manager. Nov 16, 2017. “SLVWD CIP Draft.” SLVWD Revised Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 57. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=158
R51:
District Manager. November 16, 2017. “Estimate of Cash Flow for AD16-1, Lompico Assessment District November 2017.” SLVWD Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 55. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=156
R52:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, p 4. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=4
R53:
Grand Jury interviews.
R54:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. “Resolution 8: Support of Merger Between San Lorenzo Valley Water District and Lompico County Water District.” Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, p 151. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2016/10-20- 2016/2016.10.20.BoDAgenda%20with%20backup.pdf#page=151 Published May 31, 2018 5 4 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
R55:
Grand Jury interviews.
R56:
Local Agency Formation Commission. August 6, 2014. “Making Determinations and Ordering Protest Proceedings of Territory Designated as the Lompico Reorganization LAFCO Resolution No. 953-A,” section 7(B), p 2. http://santacruzlafco.org/Library/Res%20953- A%20Final%20for%20web.pdf#page=2
R57:
Task Force on Bond Accountability. 2015. “Task Force Final Report,” p 13. California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf#page=13
R58:
Mark Campbell. August 3, 2017. “Bond Accountability: How to Make it an Everyday Thing.” California State Association of Counties. http://www.counties.org/csac-bulletin-article/bond-accountability-how-make-it- everyday-thing
R59:
Task Force on Bond Accountability (TFBA). December 14, 2015. “Task Force Final Report.” California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf
R60:
San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA). October 21, 2011. “Oversight Committee Best Practices.” SDCTA. http://www.sdcta.org/assets/files/Board%20Approved%202011%20Oversight%2 0Committee%20Best%20Practices%20w.out%20Appendices.pdf
R61:
California League of Bond Oversight Committees (CaLBOC). 2009. “Best Practices, Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee Operation Standards.” San Mateo County Office of Education. http://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/about-smcoe/superintendents-office/citizens- bond-oversight/BestPractices_5.09.pdf
R62:
City of San Diego. 2008. “North Park Maintenance Assessment District (NPMAD) Advisory Committee Bylaws.” NPMAD, as amended March 10, 2008. https://npmaddotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/mad-bylaws-amended-03-10- 08.pdf
R63:
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). 2011. “Citizen Oversight Committee Bylaws.” TAM, as amended October 27, 2011. http://2b0kd44aw6tb3js4ja3jprp6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/doc-reports/citizenss-oversight-committee/4444.pdf
R64:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R65:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R66:
Little Hoover Commission. 2009. “Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight,” pp xiii-xiv. http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/197/Report197.pdf#page=18
R67:
Grand Jury interviews.
R68:
Grand Jury interviews. Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 55
R69:
CaLBOC. 2009. “Best Practices…” (See 61.)
R70:
TFBA. 2015. “Task Force Final Report.” (See 59.)
R71:
SDCTA. 2011. “Oversight Committee Best Practices.” (See 60.)
R72:
CaLBOC. 2009. “Best Practices…” (See 61.)
R73:
City of San Diego. 2008. “...Advisory Committee Bylaws.” (See 62.)
R74:
TAM. 2011. “Citizen Oversight Committee Bylaws.” (See 63.)
R75:
LAFCO. 2014. “...Resolution No. 953-A.” (See 56.)
R76:
SLVWD. 2016. “Resolution No. 39...” (See 3.)
R77:
Lompico County Water District. December 9, 2015. “Resolution No. 2015-1: A Resolution Requesting Approval by the County of Santa Cruz of Proposed Resolution of Intention and Boundary map Under Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code of California.” Resolution 300-2015, pp 13-14. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/Minutes/2015/20151215- 676/PDF/035.pdf#page=13
R78:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. December 15, 2015. “Resolution No. 300-2015: Resolution Approving the Proposed Resolution of Intention and Boundary Map under Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code of California in and for the Lompico County Water District’s Proposed Assessment District No. 2016-1.” Resolution 300-2015, pp 4-5. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/Minutes/2015/20151215- 676/PDF/035.pdf#page=4
R79:
District Manager. April 20, 2017. “Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee.” SLVWD Special Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 14e, p 1. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/4-20- 2017/2017.4.20.BoDAgenda.pdf#page=354
R80:
District Manager. May 11, 2017. “Re: May 11th Meeting Agenda,” Email. Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, p 126. http://www.slvwd.com/lompico/LADOC%20Agenda%2005_11_2017.pdf#page=1 26
R81:
Grand Jury interviews.
R82:
District Manager. 2017. “Re: May 11th Meeting Agenda.” (See 80.)
R83:
SLVWD. June 13, 2017. Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, pp 1-17. http://slvwd.com/lompico/6.13.17%20LADOC%20with%20backup.pdf
R84:
Grand Jury interviews.
R85:
District Manager. 2017. “Discussion and Possible Action…” (See 31.) Published May 31, 2018 5 6 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
R86:
SLVWD. October 19, 2017. “Post Assessment of the Merger with Lompico Water District and Conditions of Lafco Agreement.” Board of Directors Meeting. CTV video discussion of Item 10a starts at 53:25 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=323585
R87:
Cal Gov Code, Title 5, Div. 2, Part 1, Chap. 9. “Meetings.” §54953.5(b). 2010. Accessed February 16, 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum= 54953.5.&lawCode=GOV
R88:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R89:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R90:
SLVWD. January 18, 2018. Board of Directors Meeting. CTV video recording, at approx. 218:44 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=329241
R91:
SLVWD. December 15, 2016. “Objective II; Communications.” Board Policy Manual 2017, p 1. http://www.slvwd.com/BOD_Manual/2017%20Board%20Policy%20Manual.pdf#p age=5
R92:
SLVWD. 2017. Draft Board Policy Manual, p 3 of the November 6, 2017, tracked- changes version. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/OTHER/2017/11-8- 2017%20Admin%20Mtg/2017%20Board%20Policy%20Manual.%20Revised.110 617.docx
R93:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Water district directors take gloves off.” Press Banner, April 27, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/water-district-directors- take-gloves-off/article_c99150e2-2bd0-11e7-8b14-e7638b4073c7.html
R94:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Shouting, kicking interrupt water hearing.” Press Banner, September 29, 2017. http://m.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/eedition/page-pb- cover/page_85ae7959-d335-5d41-a11f-fc7fd9c6de75.html
R95:
Direct observation by Grand Jury members attending the SLVWD Board of Directors Meeting on September 21, 2017.
R96:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Sheriff called to SLVWD meeting.” Press Banner, June 22, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/sheriff-called-to-slvwd- meeting/article_bf89d49a-578e-11e7-9273-4b702fc15453.html
R97:
District Manager. November 16, 2017. “FY1718 Budget Revision Request.” SLVWD Board of Directors Revised Agenda, item 9a, pp 1-4. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=5 Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 57
R98:
SLVWD. November 16, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, p 1. http://slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2017/Minutes%20BoD.11.16.17%20- %20approved.pdf
R99:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “SLVWD won't release letter from Vierra.” Press Banner, April 6, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/slvwd-won-t-release- letter-from-vierra/article_ed0ee7aa-1af5-11e7-8ce0-5fbc1097aad2.html
R100:
Libby Leyden. 2018. “San Lorenzo Valley Water District considers lawsuit against director.” Press Banner, January 31, 2018. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/san-lorenzo-valley-water- district-considers-lawsuit-against-director/article_12879000-06fe-11e8-a68f- 17d3356ceb0a.html
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The 24-hour Crisis Intervention Training course has given law enforcement responders additional tools for dealing with people in crisis, resulting in less use of force.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3) Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 49 Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By San Lorenzo Valley 90 Days Water District Board F1 – F3 R1 – R8 August 29, 2018 of Directors Abbreviations and Definitions ● CIP: Capital Improvement Program (also called Capital Improvement Plan) ● CTV: Community Television of Santa Cruz County ● Gantt Chart: “A Gantt chart is a visual view of tasks scheduled over time.”[105] ● Glyphosate: “Glyphosate is an herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.”[106] ● LADOC: Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee ● LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Cruz County ● LCWD: Lompico County Water District ● Resolution 953-A: LAFCO resolution (also called the “merger agreement”) approving SLVWD’s annexation of LCWD (also called the “merger”) ● SCADA: Supervisory control and data acquisition system ● SLVWD: San Lorenzo Valley Water District, also referred to in this report as “the District”
F2:
Adding more mental health liaisons and increasing their hours of availability would increase the benefit of this program to law enforcement and people in crisis.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make mental health liaisons available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F2)
R6:
The District should provide formal training about assessment districts to LADOC members and all others involved in the administration of the Assessment District. (F2)
F3:
Having law enforcement be the primary responder to non-threatening 9-1-1 EDP calls reduces the overall availability of law enforcement to the community.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
R7:
The District should record all Board and committee meetings, and post the recordings online for public access. (F3)
R8:
The District should provide formal training to all Board and committee members and senior staff on how to communicate with the public on contentious issues. (F1, F3) Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 49 Required Response Respond Within/ Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond By San Lorenzo Valley 90 Days Water District Board F1 – F3 R1 – R8 August 29, 2018 of Directors Abbreviations and Definitions ● CIP: Capital Improvement Program (also called Capital Improvement Plan) ● CTV: Community Television of Santa Cruz County ● Gantt Chart: “A Gantt chart is a visual view of tasks scheduled over time.”[105] ● Glyphosate: “Glyphosate is an herbicide. It is applied to the leaves of plants to kill both broadleaf plants and grasses.”[106] ● LADOC: Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee ● LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Cruz County ● LCWD: Lompico County Water District ● Resolution 953-A: LAFCO resolution (also called the “merger agreement”) approving SLVWD’s annexation of LCWD (also called the “merger”) ● SCADA: Supervisory control and data acquisition system ● SLVWD: San Lorenzo Valley Water District, also referred to in this report as “the District”
F4:
The Mobile Emergency Response Team (MERT) is not accessible through 9-1-1, resulting in overuse of law enforcement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
F5:
Current dispatch procedures do not distinguish between threatening and non-threatening EDP calls. Making this distinction would create an opportunity for MERT to respond to the 70 percent of 9-1-1 EDP calls that do not involve a threat.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
The County Health Services Agency and the County’s five law enforcement agencies should create a plan to make MERT available to respond to 9-1-1 EDP calls at all hours in all jurisdictions. (F3-F5)
R3:
The County Health Services Agency, the County’s five law enforcement agencies, and Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 should develop a dispatch plan that classifies 9-1-1 EDP calls as threatening (the subject presents a danger to others) or nonthreatening (the subject does not present a danger to others). (F5)
R4:
Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 should dispatch MERT with a law enforcement liaison in response to non-threatening 9-1-1 EDP calls. (F5)
F6:
Having a private, for-profit contractor operate the County BHU reduces transparency between the Behavioral Health Department and the people they serve. Published May 17, 2018 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 31
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should conduct a compliance audit of the Telecare facility to investigate the allegations in the NAMI Santa Cruz task force report, post the results of the investigation on the Health Services Agency website, and recommend appropriate changes to performance specifications in any future contract. (F6) Commendation C1. The Grand Jury commends our County’s law enforcement agencies for incorporating the new methodologies set forth in the CIT course and adapting their procedures to those methodologies.
F7:
The Soquel Union Elementary School District did not provide documentation confirming that it had analyzed the Grand Jury’s recommendation within six months; however, in 2018 it took steps to address the complaint form issue identified in the recommendation.
F8:
The Board of Supervisors followed through on its commitments to analyze Grand Jury recommendations related to Domestic Violence Commission meeting times and reporting practices.
F9:
A District Attorney designee met with the presiding judge of the Superior Court to explore the re-establishment of a Domestic Violence Court, thus fulfilling the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to do so.
F10:
The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office analyzed the Grand Jury’s Facility Risk Report
F11:
The Sheriff-Coroner‘s Office fulfilled its commitment to build a fence to enclose the entire Main Jail.
F12:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office honored their commitments to make changes to the September 2016 provider contract for medical services for County detention facilities.
F13:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office fulfilled their commitment to do a Title 15 inspection of the Main Jail in 2016. Published June 27, 2018 1 22 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
F14:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office confirmed that the Main Jail was in compliance with Title 15 Detoxification Treatment requirements in 2016.
F15:
The Felton Fire Protection District’s submission to the current Grand Jury of written policy and procedures regarding the acquisition and sale of real property contradicts the facts established in the 2016 Grand Jury report that the District lacked such documents, and is inconsistent with the District’s 2016 commitment to the public to adopt such policies and procedures in the future.
F16:
The Felton Fire Protection District has not yet fulfilled its commitment to post policies and procedures on its website.
Additional Recommendations
65
Not linked to specific findings.
R36:
Grand Jury interviews.
R37:
Grand Jury interviews. Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 53
R38:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, pp 10-11. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=10
R39:
SLVWD. 2016. “San Lorenzo Valley Water District: SLVWD Meeting: 10-20-16.” Community TV of Santa Cruz County (CTV) video, 105:45 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=293570
R40:
Grand Jury interviews.
R41:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R42:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R43:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R44:
Grand Jury interviews.
R45:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R46:
Grand Jury interviews.
R47:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R48:
Michael J. Freitas. March 22, 2016. “Assessment District No. 2016-01, Lompico County Water District, Santa Cruz, State of California, Engineering Report for Assessment District No. 2016-01, Merger with San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Lompico County Water District, County of Santa Cruz,” p 9. http://slvwd.com/lompico/EngineersReport3-22-16.pdf#page=11
R49:
SLVWD. March 9, 2017. “Assessment District No. 2016-1: Gantt Chart.”Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, p 4. http://slvwd.com/lompico/3.9.17%20LADOC%20with%20backup.pdf#page=4
R50:
District Manager. Nov 16, 2017. “SLVWD CIP Draft.” SLVWD Revised Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 57. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=158
R51:
District Manager. November 16, 2017. “Estimate of Cash Flow for AD16-1, Lompico Assessment District November 2017.” SLVWD Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 10b, p 55. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=156
R52:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, p 4. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2016/Minutes%20BoD.10.20.16- approved.pdf#page=4
R53:
Grand Jury interviews.
R54:
SLVWD. October 20, 2016. “Resolution 8: Support of Merger Between San Lorenzo Valley Water District and Lompico County Water District.” Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, p 151. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2016/10-20- 2016/2016.10.20.BoDAgenda%20with%20backup.pdf#page=151 Published May 31, 2018 5 4 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
R55:
Grand Jury interviews.
R56:
Local Agency Formation Commission. August 6, 2014. “Making Determinations and Ordering Protest Proceedings of Territory Designated as the Lompico Reorganization LAFCO Resolution No. 953-A,” section 7(B), p 2. http://santacruzlafco.org/Library/Res%20953- A%20Final%20for%20web.pdf#page=2
R57:
Task Force on Bond Accountability. 2015. “Task Force Final Report,” p 13. California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf#page=13
R58:
Mark Campbell. August 3, 2017. “Bond Accountability: How to Make it an Everyday Thing.” California State Association of Counties. http://www.counties.org/csac-bulletin-article/bond-accountability-how-make-it- everyday-thing
R59:
Task Force on Bond Accountability (TFBA). December 14, 2015. “Task Force Final Report.” California Office of the State Treasurer. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/tfba/final_report.pdf
R60:
San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA). October 21, 2011. “Oversight Committee Best Practices.” SDCTA. http://www.sdcta.org/assets/files/Board%20Approved%202011%20Oversight%2 0Committee%20Best%20Practices%20w.out%20Appendices.pdf
R61:
California League of Bond Oversight Committees (CaLBOC). 2009. “Best Practices, Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee Operation Standards.” San Mateo County Office of Education. http://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/about-smcoe/superintendents-office/citizens- bond-oversight/BestPractices_5.09.pdf
R62:
City of San Diego. 2008. “North Park Maintenance Assessment District (NPMAD) Advisory Committee Bylaws.” NPMAD, as amended March 10, 2008. https://npmaddotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/mad-bylaws-amended-03-10- 08.pdf
R63:
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). 2011. “Citizen Oversight Committee Bylaws.” TAM, as amended October 27, 2011. http://2b0kd44aw6tb3js4ja3jprp6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/doc-reports/citizenss-oversight-committee/4444.pdf
R64:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R65:
Campbell. 2017. “Bond Accountability...” (See 58.)
R66:
Little Hoover Commission. 2009. “Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight,” pp xiii-xiv. http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/197/Report197.pdf#page=18
R67:
Grand Jury interviews.
R68:
Grand Jury interviews. Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 55
R69:
CaLBOC. 2009. “Best Practices…” (See 61.)
R70:
TFBA. 2015. “Task Force Final Report.” (See 59.)
R71:
SDCTA. 2011. “Oversight Committee Best Practices.” (See 60.)
R72:
CaLBOC. 2009. “Best Practices…” (See 61.)
R73:
City of San Diego. 2008. “...Advisory Committee Bylaws.” (See 62.)
R74:
TAM. 2011. “Citizen Oversight Committee Bylaws.” (See 63.)
R75:
LAFCO. 2014. “...Resolution No. 953-A.” (See 56.)
R76:
SLVWD. 2016. “Resolution No. 39...” (See 3.)
R77:
Lompico County Water District. December 9, 2015. “Resolution No. 2015-1: A Resolution Requesting Approval by the County of Santa Cruz of Proposed Resolution of Intention and Boundary map Under Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code of California.” Resolution 300-2015, pp 13-14. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/Minutes/2015/20151215- 676/PDF/035.pdf#page=13
R78:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. December 15, 2015. “Resolution No. 300-2015: Resolution Approving the Proposed Resolution of Intention and Boundary Map under Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code of California in and for the Lompico County Water District’s Proposed Assessment District No. 2016-1.” Resolution 300-2015, pp 4-5. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. http://sccounty01.co.santa- cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/Minutes/2015/20151215- 676/PDF/035.pdf#page=4
R79:
District Manager. April 20, 2017. “Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee.” SLVWD Special Board of Directors Meeting Agenda, item 14e, p 1. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/4-20- 2017/2017.4.20.BoDAgenda.pdf#page=354
R80:
District Manager. May 11, 2017. “Re: May 11th Meeting Agenda,” Email. Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, p 126. http://www.slvwd.com/lompico/LADOC%20Agenda%2005_11_2017.pdf#page=1 26
R81:
Grand Jury interviews.
R82:
District Manager. 2017. “Re: May 11th Meeting Agenda.” (See 80.)
R83:
SLVWD. June 13, 2017. Notice of Lompico Assessment District Oversight Committee Meeting, pp 1-17. http://slvwd.com/lompico/6.13.17%20LADOC%20with%20backup.pdf
R84:
Grand Jury interviews.
R85:
District Manager. 2017. “Discussion and Possible Action…” (See 31.) Published May 31, 2018 5 6 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
R86:
SLVWD. October 19, 2017. “Post Assessment of the Merger with Lompico Water District and Conditions of Lafco Agreement.” Board of Directors Meeting. CTV video discussion of Item 10a starts at 53:25 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=323585
R87:
Cal Gov Code, Title 5, Div. 2, Part 1, Chap. 9. “Meetings.” §54953.5(b). 2010. Accessed February 16, 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum= 54953.5.&lawCode=GOV
R88:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R89:
SLVWD. Nov. 9, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting, audio recording. (See 14.)
R90:
SLVWD. January 18, 2018. Board of Directors Meeting. CTV video recording, at approx. 218:44 (min:sec). http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T02695&video=329241
R91:
SLVWD. December 15, 2016. “Objective II; Communications.” Board Policy Manual 2017, p 1. http://www.slvwd.com/BOD_Manual/2017%20Board%20Policy%20Manual.pdf#p age=5
R92:
SLVWD. 2017. Draft Board Policy Manual, p 3 of the November 6, 2017, tracked- changes version. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/OTHER/2017/11-8- 2017%20Admin%20Mtg/2017%20Board%20Policy%20Manual.%20Revised.110 617.docx
R93:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Water district directors take gloves off.” Press Banner, April 27, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/water-district-directors- take-gloves-off/article_c99150e2-2bd0-11e7-8b14-e7638b4073c7.html
R94:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Shouting, kicking interrupt water hearing.” Press Banner, September 29, 2017. http://m.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/eedition/page-pb- cover/page_85ae7959-d335-5d41-a11f-fc7fd9c6de75.html
R95:
Direct observation by Grand Jury members attending the SLVWD Board of Directors Meeting on September 21, 2017.
R96:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “Sheriff called to SLVWD meeting.” Press Banner, June 22, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/sheriff-called-to-slvwd- meeting/article_bf89d49a-578e-11e7-9273-4b702fc15453.html
R97:
District Manager. November 16, 2017. “FY1718 Budget Revision Request.” SLVWD Board of Directors Revised Agenda, item 9a, pp 1-4. http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2017/11-16- 2017/BoD%20MEETING%2011.16.17with%20backup.pdf#page=5 Published May 31, 2018 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 57
R98:
SLVWD. November 16, 2017. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, p 1. http://slvwd.com/agendas/minutes/2017/Minutes%20BoD.11.16.17%20- %20approved.pdf
R99:
Barry Holtzclaw. 2017. “SLVWD won't release letter from Vierra.” Press Banner, April 6, 2017. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/slvwd-won-t-release- letter-from-vierra/article_ed0ee7aa-1af5-11e7-8ce0-5fbc1097aad2.html
R100:
Libby Leyden. 2018. “San Lorenzo Valley Water District considers lawsuit against director.” Press Banner, January 31, 2018. http://www.goldenstatenewspapers.com/press_banner/san-lorenzo-valley-water- district-considers-lawsuit-against-director/article_12879000-06fe-11e8-a68f- 17d3356ceb0a.html
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
As promised in their responses to the 2016-17 Grand Jury report, the COE and CSO collaborated with local law enforcement agencies to produce a thorough and well-written Countywide Threat Assessment Plan.
F2:
The Plan’s detailed flow chart, assessment protocol, and related documents will be valuable resources for school districts to use in threat situations. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Respond by June 11, 2018 18 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
F3:
The Santa Cruz County Professional Development Plan for School Safety demonstrates the COE and CSO’s commitment to adequately preparing school staff and local law enforcement to respond to future threats in our schools. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Respond by June 11, 2018 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 19
F4:
Neither the Countywide Threat Assessment Plan nor the Professional Development Plan for School Safety explicitly call for rehearsing the threat assessment protocol in a non-threat situation, which may compromise the responders’ readiness in a threat situation. Response The Threat Assessment protocol has been modified to explicitly call for rehearsing the threat assessment protocol in non-threat situations. Please see pages 4 and 25 of the updated Threat Assessment Protocol (attached).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The COE should mandate rehearsals of the threat assessment process in every school district to improve the schools’ ability to determine the existence of a credible threat before violence actually occurs. (F4) Response Though the COE and CSO are not authorized to mandate school district staff rehearsals of the threat assessment process, we have included these tabletop rehearsals in the modified version of the Threat Assessment Protocol. 2 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 23
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County Sheriff’s Office and the County Office of Education have worked collaboratively to update policies and procedures. While the Sheriff’s Office cannot mandate the adoption of policy by the school districts, these policies have been shared with school districts county-wide for them to modify/adopt as they need. The Sheriff’s Office, in cooperation with our law enforcement partners, offer site-specific training to schools throughout the county on threat response. The Office of Education has scheduled School Threat Assessment training for COE staff and School Districts in early May. We continue to meet quarterly as part of an expanded School Safety task force, with law enforcement agencies, school districts and now, fire agencies from throughout the county to facilitate on-going relationships, cross- training and pre-planning activities for response to school safety issues, including the threat of school violence. We have already seen these procedures in practice with several reported incidents of threats of school violence. The checklists were followed and appropriate staff involved from both law enforcement and school districts, resulting in successful resolutions. Respond by June 11, 2018 20 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Penal Code §933.05 1. For Purposes of subdivision (b) of §933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: a. the respondent agrees with the finding, b. the respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. 2. For purpose of subdivision (b) of §933, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person shall report one of the following actions: a. the recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action, b. the recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation, c. the recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report, or d. the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 3. However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a County department headed by an elected officer, both the department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her department. 4. A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the
R3:
However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a County department headed by an elected officer, both the department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her department.
R4:
A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the
R5:
During an investigation, the Grand Jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding that investigation unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the Grand Jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
R6:
A Grand Jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the Grand Jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. Respond by June 11, 2018 BOARD OF EDUCATION 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report Ms. Jane Royer Barr 21 Ms. Rose Filicetti Ms. Sandra Nichols Ms. Sue Roth Mr. Dana M. Sales Mr. Abel Sanchez Mr. Bruce Van Allen Michael C. Watkins, Superintendent • 400 Encinal Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 • 831-466-5600 • FAX 831-466-5607 • www.santacruzcoe.org May 4, 2018 Re: County Office of Education Response to 2017-18 Grand Jury Report The County Office of Education has carefully reviewed and considered the Findings and Recommendations set forth in the “2017-18 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report, Threat Assessment in Our Public Schools.” This letter shall serve as the official response of the Santa Cruz County Superintendent of Schools and the Santa Cruz County Office of Education (collectively, the “COE”) to the Findings and Recommendations of the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury (“Grand Jury”). The County Office of Education and our partners in Law Enforcement, hold student and staff safety as our highest priority. We have been meeting actively since August 2017 with all local school Superintendents and Chiefs of Police, forming a committee we refer to as the School Safety Partnership, to coordinate the development and implementation of a Countywide Threat Assessment Plan for Schools as recommended by the Grand Jury Report. This collaboration between school and law enforcement leaders resulted in a countywide plan that addresses the
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
As promised in their responses to the 2016-17 Grand Jury report, the COE and CSO collaborated with local law enforcement agencies to produce a thorough and well-written Countywide Threat Assessment Plan.
F2:
The Plan’s detailed flow chart, assessment protocol, and related documents will be valuable resources for school districts to use in threat situations.
F3:
The Santa Cruz County Professional Development Plan for School Safety demonstrates the COE and CSO’s commitment to adequately preparing school staff and local law enforcement to respond to future threats in our schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. (F3, F4)
F4:
Neither the Countywide Threat Assessment Plan nor the Professional Development Plan for School Safety explicitly call for rehearsing the threat assessment protocol in a non-threat situation, which may compromise the responders’ readiness in a threat situation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. (F3, F4)
R2:
The COE should mandate rehearsals of the threat assessment process in every school district to improve the schools’ ability to determine the existence of a credible threat before violence actually occurs. (F4)
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
Required responses to the Findings and Recommendations for the 2016-17 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Report “Assessing the Threat of Violence in our Public Schools–Is enough being done?” 2017. Accessed January 31, 2018. http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2017_final/SchoolTh reatAssessment_Superintendent_Response.pdf and http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2017_final/SchoolTh reatAssessment_Sheriff_Response.pdf
R4:
Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/
R5:
Valerie Strauss. “Active-shooter drills for preschoolers: ‘This is who we are now’.” The Washington Post. Accessed February 22, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/02/16/active-shooter -drills-for-preschoolers-this-is-who-we-are-now/?utm_term=.fe279861731f
R6:
GuideOne Insurance. “Lockdown Procedures for Schools.” Accessed February 22,
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The current SSP Advisory Group is composed of city and county employees as well as those working in the drug and rehabilitation community, with no members from the general public who can add a community perspective.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The SSP Advisory Group should include members of the general public, including at least one rehabilitated injection drug user. (F1)
F2:
The SSP leadership creates an atmosphere of poor communication and a lack of transparency by not holding public meetings or forums for community input.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The SSP should hold public meetings or forums to encourage dialog and address community concerns. (F2, F3)
F3:
The SSP provides an abundance of information on its webpage but does not have an avenue for public dialog.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The SSP should hold public meetings or forums to encourage dialog and address community concerns. (F2, F3)
F4:
The SSP currently operates without a budget or permanent staff, which hinders the success of program goals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should allocate funds for a permanent budget for the SSP to function as mandated per SSP Policy and Procedures. (F4)
F5:
The SSP needle exchange site on Emeline Street is a confined shared space, making it difficult to provide all services to those in need.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The HSA should devote more time and resources to community outreach to promote rehabilitation and counselling of SSP clients. (F5, F6)
F6:
Limited hours, space, and staff hamper referrals to counseling, treatment, and support programs, reducing the number of people receiving assistance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The HSA should devote more time and resources to community outreach to promote rehabilitation and counselling of SSP clients. (F5, F6)
F7:
The strict one-to-one needle exchange policy can’t be followed as the SSP policy prohibits the actual physical counting of syringes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The SSP should stop using the “one-to-one” terminology to describe their needle exchange policy. (F7)
F8:
Some injection drug users don’t travel to SSP exchange sites, thus preventing them from receiving assistance from other health programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The HSA should implement a mobile needle exchange unit to increase access to SSP services. (F8, F9)
F9:
The community is at risk with syringes found in public and private spaces throughout the county.
Related Recommendations (4)
R6:
The HSA should implement a mobile needle exchange unit to increase access to SSP services. (F8, F9)
R7:
The HSA should post hazardous waste signs with a single contact number for advice or reporting, available 24/7, in areas where syringes are commonly found. (F9, F10)
R8:
The HSA should install and maintain Sharps containers in bathrooms in high needle-use public areas. (F9, F11)
R9:
The SSP should coordinate specific clean-up events throughout the county on a regular basis and report such efforts in their biennial and annual reports. (F9, F12)
F10:
Without posted signage explaining how to report hazardous waste, the public is confused as to whom to notify or what action to take about found, discarded syringes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The HSA should post hazardous waste signs with a single contact number for advice or reporting, available 24/7, in areas where syringes are commonly found. (F9, F10)
F11:
There are only three county syringe disposal kiosks, limiting access to proper disposal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The HSA should install and maintain Sharps containers in bathrooms in high needle-use public areas. (F9, F11)
F12:
There is no combined syringe clean-up effort between local agencies to protect the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The SSP should coordinate specific clean-up events throughout the county on a regular basis and report such efforts in their biennial and annual reports. (F9, F12)