Sonoma County 2003-2004 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (23)

October 20, 2004 — Report: "Got Water?"*

2 pages 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The county and each of its cities should adopt or amend a sustainable water element as part of their general plan with a target date of January 1, 2005, the adoption date of the next general plan. The City of Sonoma is in the process of updating its current (1995) general plan. Among the key resources used in the general plan update is a May, 2003 comprehensive review of the City's water system and supply needs. The review, conducted by Brelje & Race Consulting Engineers, includes an updated description of the City's water system, a review of recent water production data and updated projections of water supply and storage requirements. The review provides an overview of the current status of the Sonoma County Water Agency's efforts to meet its obligations to its contractors with specific focus on the Agency's ability to secure and deliver adequate supplies, including required infrastructure improvements to Sonoma Valley. As the general plan update progresses, the analysis of the water system and projected water needs will be updated and potential impacts will be described in the environmental impact report required for the update. We expect that the updated general plan for 2005-2020 will be adopted in the Spring of 2005. Response by the City of Sonoma to the 2003-2004 Grand Jury Final Report: "Got Water?" October 20, 2004

September 01, 2004 — Palm'drive*

2 pages 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Palm Drive Health Care District must reevaluate the procedure it has been following in the granting of exemptions to its parcel tax program. This must be accomplished prior to issuing the next regular tax billing. Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The Palm Drive Health Care District (the "District") has reevaluated its parcel tax program and the exemptions to such program in the context of a new parcel tax measure to be presented to the voters for approval on November 2, 2004. Pursuant to California Government Code §50077, the adoption of the new parcel tax measure was proposed by resolution of the Board of Directors (the "Board") at the duly noticed and regularly held public meeting on August 4, 2004.

R2: Prior to the next regular tax billing, the district must reexamine the exemptions granted, and determine if these parcels were correctly exempted. Those parcels not correctly exempted must have their parcel tax immediately reinstated and the prior exempted amount collected. Response: The District does not presently have the resources nor is it feasible to reexamine the nearly 500 exemptions granted under the current tax. The new parcel tax measure provides that the District will establish an administrative review process to grant exemptions and consider appeals.

R3: The district is urged to appoint an independent resource to audit the exemptions granted, and determine if these parcels were correctly exempted. The details of the exemption process must be studied and reapplied by the district where applicable. Owned and operated by the Palm Drive Health Care District The Honorable Allan Hardcastle Presiding Judge, Sonoma County Superior Court September 1, 2004 Response: The language of the proposed new parcel tax includes clarification and definition of contiguous parcels of real property. This definition will significantly reduce any ambiguity associated with the current tax. For purposes of the parcel tax measure the term "Parcel of Real Property" is defined to specifically exclude low value parcels. In addition, contiguous parcels are specifically addressed in the measure such that multiple parcels of real property under the same name and ownership, which are contiguous and part of one economic unit, may be charged as one parcel of real property. The new parcel tax measure provides that the District will establish an administrative review process to grant exemptions and consider appeals with respect to contiguous parcels of real property. The District's publicly elected Board of Directors provides oversight to the administrative review process, which includes grievance and appeals procedures.

R4: The district must publish a tax exemption procedure, if one is to be in effect, to be sent to the voters together with a description of the proposed new parcel tax measure so that there will be no ambiguity when applying a tax exemption in the future. Response: The recommendation is being implemented in part in connection with the new parcel tax measure. The new parcel tax measure to be submitted to the voters in November 2004 includes specific exemptions for certain property that will not be subject to the parcel tax. As stated above, for purposes of the parcel tax measure the term "Parcel of Real Property" is defined to specifically exclude low value parcels, and contiguous parcels are specifically addressed in the measure such that multiple parcels of real property under the same name and ownership, which are contiguous and part of one economic unit may, be charged as one parcel of real property. Pursuant to the new measure, the District will establish an administrative review process to grant exemptions and consider appeals with respect to contiguous parcels of real property. Once the new measure is enacted, an exemption procedure will be published.

R5: All requests for Hardship Exemption must be denied. The applicant must be referred to the program entitled: "Property Tax Postponement for Senior Citizens, Blind or Disabled Citizens", to determine if they are eligible. Prior Hardship Exemptions must be immediately reinstated and the prior exempted amount collected. Response: The recommendation will be implemented in part in connection with the new parcel tax measure. The new parcel tax does not include an exemption for undue hardship on the taxpayer, and no such exemptions will be granted under the new parcel tax. Those taxpayers unable to pay will be referred to the "Property Tax Postponement for Senior Citizens, Blind or Disabled Citizens" program, to determine if they are eligible for exemption under that program. Respectfully submitted, Namirfoder Naomi Fuchs, President Board of Directors Palm Drive Health Care District

August 19, 2004 — Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association Gary J. Bei Retirement Administrator*

3 pages 2 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F2: - The County provides extensive benefits administered by Risk Management, including health coverage, retiree health coverage, insurance, retirement pension and long term disability. SCERA Response: We have one point of clarification. The retirement pension is not administered by Risk Management, but is administered by the Board of Retirement and Staff of SCERA.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: – The Disability Retirement Board and Risk Management must meet with union representatives as often as necessary, but at least monthly, to establish better communication and understanding. SCERA Response: The specific recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted given existing circumstances. Staff representatives of the Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association, County Counsel, and Risk Management have already met with the Coalition of Labor Unions and agreed to meet periodically as needed. As a result of the meetings that have been held, an action plan was developed and priorities were established. The Board of Retirement's Disability Committee already holds a monthly public meeting at which time matters of concern relating to disability retirement can be raised and discussed. Also, the Board of Retirement holds a separate monthly meeting that is open to all interested parties. SCERA does not believe that an additional monthly meeting is either necessary or feasible given staff's overall responsibilities and priorities for the entire organization. This will be especially true for the near future as SCERA is called upon to process a greater than normal number of retirements.

F7: - Since 1998, the average time for resolution for Long Term Disability Retirement, from application to the date of acceptance is 9.4 months. SCERA Response: We have two points of clarification. First, the Disability Retirement benefit should not be confused with the Long Term Disability benefit. The term "Long Term Disability Retirement" could be confusing for some readers as it represents a combination of the common terms "Long Term Disability" and "Disability Retirement". Second, the 9.4 month average time for resolution for Disability Retirement would be more correctly stated as a current statistic rather than since 1998. Aviation Boulevard Santa Rosa, California 95403-1069 www.scretire.com P 707.565.8100 F 707.565.8102 Judge Allan Hardcastle August 19, 2004

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: - All mid-level management, division directors, supervisors and employees must be instructed on a regularly scheduled basis and at least twice during the year beginning in September 2004 in the revised Illness and Injury Prevention Program with greater emphasis on department responsibility. SCERA Response: The specific recommendation will be implemented in that SCERA already has an approved Illness and Injury Prevention Program (IIPP) plan, and the SCERA administration will be instructing and providing information to staff in accordance an approved schedule that will meet the requirements of the recommendation.

R5: - For employees who develop an illness during their employment, the evaluation and recommendations of the employee's medical specialist should be given priority regarding accommodation and disability retirement if the County appointed Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) does not possess equal expertise. SCERA Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted given the legal constraints within which SCERA must operate. The standards governing decisions regarding disability retirement applications are established by the County Employees' Retirement Law of 1937 (the "Act") and judicial precedent interpreting that Act. The Board of Retirement is required to make its determinations utilizing those standards based on the specific facts of each application. SCERA does not make use of Qualified Medical Examiners in the disability retirement process. However, the Board is authorized by the Act to obtain medical, investigatory and other services to assist it in carrying out its responsibilities. In the past, the Board has utilized a variety of medical experts to obtain advice depending on the nature of the issues presented. In addition, the County Medical Officer is required by law to advise the Board on medical matters. Judge Allan Hardcastle August 19, 2004 . - 2 If you have any questions or need any additional information regarding the above responses, please feel free to contact us at our offices (565-8100). Best regards, Donald BHeary Donald Head Gary Bei Retirement Administrator Chairman of the Retirement Board SCERA SCERA Cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Denise Gordon, County Court Executive Officer Mike Chrystal, County Administrator Eeve Lewis, County Clerk .

July 21, 2004 — City of Healdsburg Department of Public Works*

3 pages 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The county and each of its cities should adopt or amend a sustainable water element as part of their general plan with a target date of January 1, 2005, the adoption date of the next general plan. We assume that the intention of this recommendation is to include public education and conservation program elements in its General Plan, as described in the text of the report. It is important to note that the City of Healdsburg has already implemented a number of very successful measures to conserve our water supply, including leak detection and repair, metered water sales, and conservation pricing. The net result of these efforts is that annual water use in Healdsburg has remained relatively flat between 1990 and 2000, despite a population increase of 13%, and in fact is slightly below its levels from 10 years ago. Looking towards the future, Healdsburg has recently taken steps to reduce water demands from some of its largest customers, including golf courses, over the last decade. The City of Healdsburg has also adopted two separate growth management measures that significantly limit growth and the resulting increase in water demands. The City's Urban Growth Boundary was adopted in 1996 and places a geographic limitation on the expansion of the City limits and a limit on the extension of City services through the year 2016. In 2000, the voters also adopted a Growth Management Initiative. This Growth Management Initiative limits new market rate residential dwelling unit construction to no more than an average of 30 units per year, and this has been incorporated into the General Plan policies. These measures, by law, limit the residential growth potential of the City to less than 1% per year. Water supply increases are therefore expected to continue a stable or downward trend in Healdsburg for many years to come. Sonoma County Grand Jury July 21, 2004 We appreciate and recognize the importance of effective water conservation measures, and based on your recommendations will consider incorporating these or similar water conservation measures when the City completes its next General Plan update, which we tentatively expect to be in 2005.

R2: The county and each of its cities should adopt and develop a comprehensive groundwater management plan such as that set forth in AB 3030. The information from the existing groundwater studies should be used to provide a bank of information upon which to initiate a groundwater management plan. The City of Healdsburg, like virtually all other cities and communities adjacent to the Russian River in Sonoma and Mendocino counties, relies on the Russian River system and the two federal water supply projects within the watershed, Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma, for its water supply. The Russian River is a highly regulated system, with releases from Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma jointly managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). Both the Corps and the SCWA have been deeply engaged in a variety of exhaustive and highly complicated water supply planning activities, the most significant of which is compliance with the Endangered Species Act listings for salmonids in the Russian River and its tributaries. The City monitors these planning activities closely, and participates to insure the long-term reliability and sustainability the City's water supply. For the purposes of regulating the quantity and availability of water, all of the City's municipal water supply is treated as surface water. The City of Healdsburg does not rely on any groundwater sources. Although there are a number of private groundwater wells within the City of Healdsburg, their numbers are very limited, and the City has policies in place to require abandonment of these private groundwater wells and conversion to the City's municipal water system. Consequently, dependence on true groundwater supplies within the City of Healdsburg is extremely limited, and there are no identified overdraft or groundwater shortage problems within the City. Given these facts and the continued trend away from groundwater, a formal citywide groundwater management plan for Healdsburg would not be appropriate. The Grand Jury report points to the example of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which uses groundwater for approximately half its water supply, as a model groundwater management program. The Santa Clara district is comprised of a completely urbanized area overlying a groundwater basin that has been intensively used for decades, and the groundwater basin itself is now intensively managed for groundwater recharge and extraction. While some areas in Sonoma County, where groundwater is used, have experienced problems with groundwater availability, none of these compares in scale to the example of the Santa Clara district. Much of the recent discussion in Sonoma County has focused on the perceived need for countywide management of groundwater supplies. Much of this concern stems from the increasing use of groundwater supplies in specific areas of the County, specifically in water- short areas such as the Joy Road, Mark West Springs, and Bennett Valley areas, as well as in areas with pronounced groundwater drawdown, such as Rohnert Park. We note that other July 21, 2004 Sonoma County Grand Jury communities such as the Town of Windsor plan to significantly increase their use and dependence on groundwater for their future water supplies. If and when a groundwater management plan is adopted at the County level, it should focus only on these water short areas with demonstrated problems, or in areas where there are formal plans for a substantial increase in groundwater use. In areas where groundwater is not used and is not planned to be used, we believe that such a plan would not make sense. As the Grand Jury report points out, there is a seemingly endless list of agencies with some level of jurisdiction over water supplies in Sonoma County. The missions of these agencies often conflict, and the overlapping jurisdictions and conflicting requirement of these agencies are a frequent source of frustration for local water suppliers, who are simply trying to responsibly provide a reliable, sustainable and safe water supply for their respective service areas. The degree to which this complicates and frustrates this basic mission is difficult to convey to anyone not on the receiving end of these regulations. Any comprehensive groundwater management plan should avoid imposing yet another overlapping jurisdiction and additional conflicting regulations. Specifically, any groundwater management plan should exclude areas where water drawn from wells is regulated as a surface water source by the State Water Resources Control Board. This would include the alluvial aquifers of the Russian River and its tributaries, where there is a direct connection between the surface water and alluvial groundwater. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the report. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns specific to Healdsburg. Sincerely Chet Wysterel City Manager

July 01, 2004 — Child Support Payments - Process Integrity July 1, 2004

3 pages 6 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: As recommended by the 2002-2003 grand jury, CSS and an association of similar county groups lobbied the state to reduce the 10% interest rate on child support payment arrears in order to improve collection. It was discovered that reducing this interest rate for child support arrears alone would be discriminatory versus the interest rate on other late payments such as tax arrears where desires exist to keep the rate punitively high. No action is expected.

F2: CSS uses computer systems to input actual child support payment data which is sent periodically during the month to a state computer system. The state consolidates CSS data with that of other counties and provides data to the IRS, Franchise Tax Board, and credit rating agencies who act upon individual balances that are past due or in arrears. If in arrears to CSS, the IRS will attach tax refunds. In the case of the Franchise Tax Board it will attach both tax refunds and bank accounts.

F3: There is an unintentional systems’ delay between the time when payments made to CSS are recorded, and when the information is received by the IRS or Franchise Tax Board. This could cause unwarranted attachments. CSS is aware of this shortcoming and has implemented tracking and override procedures to reduce the chance of an unwarranted attachment. It was individual diligence that prevented an attachment in one of the cases reviewed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: CSS staff involved in the calculation of account balances must be made aware of the need to verify arrears with all parties involved and balance their considerations before data is released to the state systems that trigger tax refund or bank account attachments. This assumes the parties have been given proper notice and have had the opportunity to respond. Required Responses to Findings Director-Child Support Services – F5 Required Responses to Recommendations Director, Child Support Services – R1, R2

F4: Brochures have been developed by the state and CSS that outline its services and describe the child support collection process in general terms. These brochures are sent to the payers when collection management by CSS begins, along with a letter which also provides a phone contact number.

F5: CSS payers are advised in general terms of the collection process, but not of the specific procedures when disputes arise. It is not sufficiently clear to the non-custodial parent that an immediate response to a dispute is imperative to avoid subsequent IRS or Franchise Tax Board action. Payers who are not in arrears and unfamiliar with the CSS process will not be aware that disputed amounts still under review might cause unwarranted penalties and consequences due to the automated workings of the computer system.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: CSS should add a paragraph to the initial notification to non-custodial parents (Contact Order) that clearly outlines: (cid:131) How CSS calculates and establishes the account balances, (cid:131) The timing of those steps, (cid:131) How the non custodial parent will be notified of the specifics, and (cid:131) The potential consequences of non-response.

F6: No evidence was found of CSS procedures not being followed or of processing delays within CSS. Conclusions Computer system lags allow for incorrect information to be acted upon, automatically penalizing and unjustly shifting the burden to the non-custodial parents to correct the problem created by the system. Due process requires that there be adequate disclosure and system safeguards so that penalties do not result inadvertently. 2/3 July 1, 2004 The repercussions of IRS or Franchise Tax Board attachments and credit rating agency arrears notification are severe. As a result, it is important that all opposing parties have the opportunity to dispute transactions before the data is released to state systems. CSS staff must carefully research and confirm all data submitted. CSS has done well in trying to communicate its role and responsibilities to all parties involved in this process. It could be improved, however, if their initial advice letter stressed individuals’ prompt attention to their account balances and that any dispute be resolved quickly. In the meantime, CSS should control the release of that data until bona fide disputes are resolved.

Related Recommendations (1)

July 01, 2004 — Correctional Officer Overtime, Understaffing and Injury in the County Jail July 1, 2004

13 pages 26 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 26 findings

F01: Sick hours declined in 2000-01 and have remained flat until the present, in inverse relationship to compensatory hours. In 2001-02 disability hours and the number of FTE absent because of disability injuries rose dramatically, peaking in 2002-03, and appear to be declining in 2003-04 (final figures were not available at the time this report was written). Disability injury costs exceeded the costs of hiring more correctional officers to reduce the overtime and injury rate. (See Addendum: “Is Overtime Cheaper?”). Questions and Uncertainties On May 5, 2004, the county Board of Supervisors approved the hiring of 10 more correctional officers in an effort to reduce overtime hours and the injury rate. But are 10 enough? At best 10 more officers will reduce overall Detention Division overtime hours by about 17-18% percent. If this reduction helps to accelerate the decline in disability injuries to 1997 levels, another 8 to 10 officers would be available to work, which with the 10 new hires could reduce the number of Detention Division overtime hours by more than one-third if availability also goes up as a consequence of the reduction in overtime hours. But if the disability decline does not occur, more hires may be needed to significantly reduce overtime fatigue and the resulting injury rate. Another factor is the 15% turnover rate that generates 25 vacancies a year. To keep up with these is difficult and expensive, given the high standards and training required. Adding 10 more funded positions will make it more so. To what extent is the turnover rate a function of mandatory overtime? Many of the correctional officers interviewed said that reducing overtime hours could help to retain experienced officers who were leaving because of the overtime. If so, then recruitment and training costs could decline as a result of a reduction in overtime hours. Most correctional officers do not like mandatory overtime and want more free time and more control over their work schedules, but how much overtime pay are they willing to give up? Is the problem overtime or mandatory overtime? In the present system, correctional officers cannot say “no” to overtime when they are fatigued or burned out and should not be working. The system cannot adjust itself to the energy level and willingness of its employees. The National Institute of Justice recommends making overtime voluntary. To do that the Sheriff’s Department would have to survey its correctional officers to find out how much overtime they want to work, and balance the cost of overtime fatigue and injuries against the cost of hiring more officers. The Sheriff’s Department knows how many correctional officers it can hire without risk of overstaffing, and it can program as much or as little overtime as it wants its correctional officers to work. 5/13 July 1, 2004 Conclusions

F1: Overtime pay is an important source of income for correctional officers, averaging 30 percent of total income.

F2: Most overtime hours are mandatory for correctional officers assigned to fixed-post positions. Some correctional officers choose to work more than the minimum number of mandatory hours.

F3: Excluding sergeants, management, and administrative positions, correctional officers each worked an average 464 hours of overtime in 2003.

F4: In 2003, correctional officers assigned to fixed-post positions worked an average 20 hours of overtime per pay period.

F5: Correctional officers sign up for overtime hours once a month beginning at a specified hour, first come first served. Correctional officers who do not sign up will have hours assigned to them. Correctional officers must wait on their own time for sign-up to begin. For some officers the wait period can be three or four hours.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Change the overtime sign-up procedure so hours can be fairly distributed without officers having to wait on their own time for sign ups to begin. Required Responses to Findings Sonoma County Sheriff: F6, F7, F19, F24, F25 Sonoma County Administrator: F7, F12, F19, F24 Sonoma County Risk Manager: F19, F24, F25 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors: F7, F19, F24, F25 Required Responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Sheriff: R1, R2, R3, R4 Sonoma County Risk Manager: R1, R2 Sonoma County Administrator: R2, R3 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors: R2, R3 6/13 July 1, 2004 Addendum The following summary entitled “Is Overtime Cheaper?” and the following charts, have been prepared by the grand jury based on information it received from various sources. Is Overtime Cheaper? Overtime Cost per Hour Overtime equals time and a half plus FICA (7.65%) and workers’ compensation (8.8%), for a total 75 percent beyond base salary (1 x 1.5 x 1.1645). Overtime availability is 100 percent, with a fixed overhead of 75 percent. Average Overtime Cost per Hour Average Hourly + 50% + FICA & Workers’ Comp Total Actual % Above Base Salary CO II (7.65% +8.8% x Base) Hourly Cost Base Salary $30.12 $15.06 $7.43 $52.61 75% Regular Salary Cost per Hour Benefits as a percentage of regular salary are 60.5 percent for a Correctional Officer II, the most common rank. Correctional officer availability per full-time position is about 80 percent, increasing the de facto base hourly rate by 25 percent and raising the total overhead to 85 percent. Regular Salary Cost per Hour 2003 Average Hourly x Benefits +25% Availability Loss Total Actual % Above Base Salary CO II @ 60.5% (@80% availability) Hourly Cost Base Salary $30.12 $18.22 $7.53 $55.87 85% New Employee Training, Uniform, and Equipment Costs In the first year, the added cost of employing ten new correctional officers, considering the cost of equipment and training, and adjusting for the overtime saved by their addition to the workforce, is estimated at $357,483. The additional second year cost at fiscal year 2004-05 rates is estimated at $51,739 for ten officers. In contrast, overtime FTE are not new employees, and so using overtime instead of new hires will avoid all of these added costs. Disability Injury Costs The elimination of all overtime in the jail would not eliminate all disability injuries in the jail, but according to a National Institute of Justice study a high injury rate in jails and prisons is a predictable consequence of fatigue resulting from excessive mandatory overtime. Some portion of the injury cost then is part of the cost of mandatory overtime. But how much? In 2002-03 there were 14.9 FTE lost to disability injuries, causing at least 18,380 in additional overtime hours at an estimated cost of $966,972. If 2002-03 overtime hours were reduced from 76 per FTE to the 1996-97 level of 8 per FTE, there would have been only 1944 disability hours at a cost of $102,274, a difference of $864,698, enough to hire, train, and equip 24 new correctional officers. On May 5, 2004, the county hired 10 new correctional officers. 7/13 July 1, 2004

F6: Most correctional officers are willing to forgo some overtime in exchange for more free time and more control over their work schedules. A few correctional officers are willing to give up all overtime. 2/13 July 1, 2004

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Survey all correctional officers to learn how much overtime they desire.

F7: Most overtime hours are planned a year in advance. Since fiscal year 1997-98, between 70% and 90% of all Detention Division annual overtime hours were anticipated at the time the budget was approved by the Board of Supervisors. Beginning fiscal year 2000-01, 85% or more of overtime hours were budgeted.

F8: Administrators know how many FTE to hire to reduce overtime to 1992-93 levels. In the county budget, correctional officer overtime hours are expressed as full-time equivalent positions. Beginning with fiscal year 1997-98, and assuming 80% availability, another 35 to 40 full-time positions could have been filled in the Detention Division to eliminate 70 percent of all Detention Division overtime hours without risk of overstaffing.

F9: The number of inmates has increased at more than twice the rate of correctional officers. Since fiscal year 1992-93, the inmate population has increased 36 percent while the number of filled full-time equivalent positions in the Detention Division has increased nearly 14 percent. 2003-2004 Percent 1992-1993 thru April Increase ADP 791 1079 36.4% FTE 213 242 13.6%

F10: In the last few years, overall correctional officer availability to work has averaged about 80.3%. Out of a total 2,088 possible annual work hours, correctional officers have on average worked 1,677 hours. But availability varies by year and by worksite. For example, as of March 25, 2004 MADF correctional officer availability was only 75%.

F11: The average annual turnover rate for correctional officers working fixed-post positions is 15% a year, or about 26.5 positions. About one-third of these were officers out on disability who were not expected to return to work.

F12: If the 1992-93 ratio of correctional officers to inmates had been applied in 2002-03, there would have been 277 correctional officers employed, 34 more than actually filled. At 80% availability, 34 more officers would have reduced all Detention Division overtime hours by 54%. If dedicated solely to fixed-post position overtime, 34 FTE would have reduced fixed-post overtime by at least 70%.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Hire sufficient staff to enable a voluntary overtime system.

F13: Overtime hours per FTE increased sharply in 1998 and have remained high to the present. The primary cause in 1998 was the opening of the new jail wing at the Main Adult Detention Facility and insufficient filled positions

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Hire sufficient staff to enable a voluntary overtime system.

F14: In recent years as the use of compensatory time has gone up, sick time has come down in proportion, with the resulting time off remaining about the same.

F15: Historically overtime hours created by absences due to disability injuries and sick leave have tended to rise and fall together, suggesting that illness and injuries share the same causes. In 2000-01 and 2002-03, disability hours rose while sick hours remained flat. Projected hours for 2003-04 show both declining. 3/13 July 1, 2004

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Develop a policy that balances the need for overtime against the need to minimize fatigue, prevent injuries and illness, and maintain morale.

F16: Expressed as full-time equivalent positions, overtime hours due to disability injuries were highest in fiscal year 2002-03. They are expected to decline slightly in fiscal year 2003-04, but still remain at a historic high.

F17: In the first year, the added cost of employing ten new correctional officers, considering the cost of equipment and training, and adjusting for the overtime saved by their addition to the workforce, is estimated at $357,483, or $35,748 per individual officer. The additional second year cost at fiscal year 2004-05 rates is estimated at $51,739 for ten officers, or $5,174 per individual officer.

F18: When disability injury costs are not considered, it is cheaper to pay overtime than to hire more permanent correctional officers. The overtime hourly rate is less than the actual salary rate when availability is considered, and with overtime there is no additional training cost. (See sidebar)

F19: When disability costs are considered, it is often cost effective to hire more permanent correctional officers than to fill positions with overtime hours.

F20: In the last five fiscal years ending June 30, 2002, the total incurred disability cost for correctional officers in Sonoma County was $7,300,000, twice the cost incurred by law enforcement and the highest of any job classification in Sonoma County. The highest costs were incurred in 1998-99, the year of highest overtime per FTE.

F21: Recently disability absences have increased in proportion to all overtime hours.

F22: The Main Adult Detention Facility is a hard-surfaced environment with concrete floors and steel staircases. The injury rate in this environment is predictably higher than the rate in an environment with wooden floors and rug-covered staircases.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Develop a policy that balances the need for overtime against the need to minimize fatigue, prevent injuries and illness, and maintain morale.

F23: The jail is a closed environment housing hundreds of people, some of whom are sick. Correctional officers in this environment are likely to be sick more often than people working in more open environments.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Develop a policy that balances the need for overtime against the need to minimize fatigue, prevent injuries and illness, and maintain morale.

F24: On May 5, 2004, the Board of Supervisors approved the hiring of 10 more correctional officers. But even with 10 additional officers, the jail is still understaffed. At 80.3% availability, 10 are not likely to reduce all Detention Division overtime hours by more than 16-17%, or fixed-post overtime hours by more than 19-20%.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Hire sufficient staff to enable a voluntary overtime system.

F25: In a nation-wide study of correctional officer stress, the National Institute of Justice reports that “stress is widespread and, in many cases, severe—and possibly increasing—among correctional officers.” (cid:131) Primary causes are “rotating work shifts, lack of opportunity for career advancement, frustration with supervisors’ leadership styles and demands, understaffing, and mandatory overtime.” (cid:131) Lowering stress will “reduce excessive sick leave as a means of coping with stress on the job,…the need to pay overtime to cover for officers on sick leave or who quit because of work-related stress, reduce the time officers need off after a critical incident before returning to work, reduce fees paid into the retirement fund because of fewer stress-related early retirements, improve officer performance through higher staff morale, and increase institutional safety through fewer 4/13 July 1, 2004 inexperienced officers on duty and fewer officer distractions with work-related and personal stresses.” (cid:131) Among the recommendations to reduce organizational stress, the report includes making overtime voluntary and improving the shift schedule to a 3-12 shift arrangement (already in use in the Sonoma County Jails) or “5 days on, 7 days off” to create a “mini-vacation every other week.” (Finn, 2000) Summary of Findings In 1997-98 the Sheriff’s Department began to accurately estimate overtime hours a year in advance and to build the costs into its budget. This was also the year when the new jail wing opened, creating more unfilled fixed-post positions and a 30 percent increase in overtime hours per FTE. The ratio of overtime hours to FTE has remained approximately at 1998 levels to the present, saving the county the cost of filling and maintaining a possible 35-40 more positions and increasing correctional officer overtime pay to 30 percent of total income. Disability hours and injury costs increased in 1998-99, leveled off in 1999-00, and declined somewhat in 2000- 01. Sick hours declined in 2000-01 and have remained flat until the present, in inverse relationship to compensatory hours. In 2001-02 disability hours and the number of FTE absent because of disability injuries rose dramatically, peaking in 2002-03, and appear to be declining in 2003-04 (final figures were not available at the time this report was written). Disability injury costs exceeded the costs of hiring more correctional officers to reduce the overtime and injury rate. (See Addendum: “Is Overtime Cheaper?”). Questions and Uncertainties On May 5, 2004, the county Board of Supervisors approved the hiring of 10 more correctional officers in an effort to reduce overtime hours and the injury rate. But are 10 enough? At best 10 more officers will reduce overall Detention Division overtime hours by about 17-18% percent. If this reduction helps to accelerate the decline in disability injuries to 1997 levels, another 8 to 10 officers would be available to work, which with the 10 new hires could reduce the number of Detention Division overtime hours by more than one-third if availability also goes up as a consequence of the reduction in overtime hours. But if the disability decline does not occur, more hires may be needed to significantly reduce overtime fatigue and the resulting injury rate. Another factor is the 15% turnover rate that generates 25 vacancies a year. To keep up with these is difficult and expensive, given the high standards and training required. Adding 10 more funded positions will make it more so. To what extent is the turnover rate a function of mandatory overtime? Many of the correctional officers interviewed said that reducing overtime hours could help to retain experienced officers who were leaving because of the overtime. If so, then recruitment and training costs could decline as a result of a reduction in overtime hours. Most correctional officers do not like mandatory overtime and want more free time and more control over their work schedules, but how much overtime pay are they willing to give up? Is the problem overtime or mandatory overtime? In the present system, correctional officers cannot say “no” to overtime when they are fatigued or burned out and should not be working. The system cannot adjust itself to the energy level and willingness of its employees. The National Institute of Justice recommends making overtime voluntary. To do that the Sheriff’s Department would have to survey its correctional officers to find out how much overtime they want to work, and balance the cost of overtime fatigue and injuries against the cost of hiring more officers. The Sheriff’s Department knows how many correctional officers it can hire without risk of overstaffing, and it can program as much or as little overtime as it wants its correctional officers to work. 5/13 July 1, 2004 Conclusions 1. The jail is understaffed even with the addition of 10 new hires. 2. Most correctional officers work too many overtime hours. 3. Excessive overtime generates a vicious cycle of fatigue, illness, injury, and more overtime. 4. Correctional officers have the highest disability injury costs of any job classification in Sonoma County. 5. When the cost of disability injuries is considered, it is more cost effective to employ more correctional officers than to employ high levels of mandatory overtime. 6. The Sheriff’s Department could hire another 20 correctional officers without risk of overstaffing.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Develop a policy that balances the need for overtime against the need to minimize fatigue, prevent injuries and illness, and maintain morale.

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R92-93: 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 sruoH emitrevO Budgeted OT Hours Actual OT Hours F8 Budgeted Overtime Positions 43.30 43.40 43.10 43.60 40.54 37.24 35.16 35.89 35.96 18.60 17.90 14.18

R94-95: 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 12/13 July 1, 2004 P.O. Box 5109 (cid:121) Santa Rosa (cid:121) California 95402 (cid:121) 707 537-6330 (cid:121) fax 707 537-6328 e-mail: [email protected] (cid:121) www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com/pages/gjury_info.php sruoH emitrevO All Other Overtime Hrs Sick Hrs Disability Hrs Reference List During the course of this investigation, the grand jury reviewed the following reports and documents. Sheriff’s Department reports and documents: “Availability”. (Report Class: Sheriff.Division.Department.JobClassGroup.PayCode. Average). Start Year 2002-2003, Pay Period Count 26.10; and Start Year 2003- 2004, Pay Period Count 15.50 (run February 18, 2004). “Availability”. (Report Class: Sheriff.Division.Department.JobClassGroup.PayCode. Average). Start Year 2003-2004. Pay Period Count 18.50 (run March 25, 2004). “Budget Position Summary Report.” Dept 20. Criminal Justice. January 16, 2004. “Department Administrative Procedure 60-2, Overtime.” Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department, pages 1 and 2. August 11, 1992. “Detention Division Positions Worked 2001 – 2003” (MADF and NCDF). “Labor Distribution to Date Earnings, Period End Date 12-22-2003”. Job Class 4154 (MADF and NCDF Correctional Officer II), and Job Class 4082 (Patrol Deputy Sheriff II Intermediate Post). “Main Adult Detention Facility Staffing Plan - FY-04-05.” “Memorandum of Understanding Between the County of Sonoma and the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association (SCLEA), 2003-2007”. “Non-Holiday Overtime Worked by Job Classification”. (MADF and NCDF). FY 98-99 – FY 02-03. “North County Detention Facility Staffing Plan - FY 04-05.” “O.T. By Job Class Group” (Report Class: Division.Department.JobClassGroup LaborCode.PayCompensation). Start Year 2002-2003. (All Divisions). February 03, 2004. “O.T. By Job Class Group” (Report Class: Division.Department.JobClassGroup LaborCode.PayCompensation). Start Year 2003-2004. (Detention Main Jail and Honor Farm). March 26, 2004. “Overtime Requirements”, January – December O/T Requirement, 2002. “Overtime Utilization”. (Report Class: Division.Department.OverTime. PayCompensation). Group Sheriff. Start Year 2003-2004, 12.5 and 18.5 pay periods. “Overtime Worked and Projected”. FY 92-93 through 18.5 pay periods FY 03-04. “Overtime Worked by Job Class History”. (Report Class: Division.Department. JobClassGroup.LaborCode.FiscalYear). Start Year 2003-2004. Detention-Honor Farm. February 19, 2004. “Overtime Worked by Job Classification”. MADF and NCDF. Budget/Job Class/Reason. FY

R96-97: 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 Sick Hours per FTE Compensatory Hours per FTE F15 Sick and Disability Overtime Hours per FTE 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 d 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 e 9 5 - 9 6 - 9 7 - 9 8 - 9 9 - 0 0 - 0 1 - 0 2 - e ct oj Pr 4 0 - 3 0 Sick Hours per FTE Disability Hours per FTE F16 FTE Lost to Disabilities 14.9 13.2 11.2 10.2 6.8 6.3 4.7 4.6 4.0 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 d 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 e 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 0 - 1 - 2 - ct 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 e oj Pr 4 0 - 3 0 11/13 July 1, 2004 F21 Overtime Hours Due to Disability Absences Are Increasing Relative to Sick and Other Hours 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0

July 01, 2004 — Evaluation, Discipline and Termination July 1, 2004

4 pages 7 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The employee evaluation, discipline and termination processes are governed by and follow federal, state and county laws: workers’ compensation, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Civil Service Rules, and union contracts. County policy and protocol are established and the processes involve personnel and offices from County Administration, the 28 county department heads, union representatives, the Retirement Board, and the Civil Service Commission. There are approximately 4,000 employees in the county, 90% in just 5 of the 28 departments, and 90% are covered by union contracts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: When the head of a department retires, Human Resources must notify all department managers and supervisors that they are expected to continue monitoring and performing the evaluation, discipline and termination processes during the time of transition.

F2: Between June 2004 and June 2005, including the County Administrator, one-third of the department heads will be retiring. 2/4 July 1, 2004

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Within the next 2 years, the Department of Human Resources, Sheriff’s, Probation, Transportation and Public Works, and all other departments should implement a computer program for employee evaluations comparable to that used by Health Services and Human Services.

F3: Department heads have the responsibility for making sure employee evaluations are done at the appropriate times: 6 months for new employees who are on probation, once a year until an employee reaches the top of his/her pay scale, and biennially thereafter. “On the spot” oral evaluations are used as necessary. Managers and supervisors do the evaluations for their employees. There are differences from one department to another in criteria to be evaluated, formats, methods of rating, and in the quality of the recording. Approximately 85% of employee evaluations are completed on time.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Human Resources and department heads should continue to see that all supervisors and managers are trained in the following: performing employee evaluations, using the progressive steps of disciplinary action, writing objective behavioral goals and setting time limits on needed improvements.

F4: Two of the largest departments, Health Services and Human Services, use computer programs to do their evaluations. Their programs are interactive. They guide and prompt the evaluator in a comprehensive manner resulting in a more thorough, time saving and objective evaluation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Human Resources Department must remind, in writing, all 28 of the Heads of the Departments that chronically poor performing employees should receive progressive discipline as outlined in the county Memo 00-003-00P Recommended Disciplinary Action Procedures.

F5: The disciplinary process is complex and time consuming. The Recommended Disciplinary Action Procedures document provides guidelines on informal and formal means of discipline. Informal refers to supervisor-employee talks or written documentation (write- ups). Formal refers to actions of suspension, reduction in pay, demotion or discharge. A “Skelly” hearing is the first step in the formal proceedings. The employee, the employee’s supervisor and the employee’s chosen representative meet with the department head, and the employee is informed of the intended disciplinary action. The employee then responds. If the employee chooses to appeal the management decision, the Civil Service Commissioner sets up a settlement conference, and attempts mediation. In these very few cases, 1/3-1/2 reach a settlement and the employee returns to work, takes retirement, resigns, or is discharged. In unresolved cases, the process proceeds under the auspices of the Civil Service Commission.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Staff should strive to complete all employee evaluations on-time. Required Responses to the Findings: None Required Responses to the Recommendations Director, Human Resources - R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 Sheriff - R2 Director, Personnel, Sheriff’s Department - R2 Director, Transportation and Public Works - R2 Director, Probation - R2

F6: Decisions and choices that staff make for chronically poor performing employees are open to uncertainty and a wide range of possible actions. Decisions are not only based upon employee performance, but are affected by other considerations such as: budget constraints, program cuts, department workload, an employee’s seniority and retirement status. Staff may not follow the usual progressive disciplinary actions, and instead may chose to transfer the employee into another position in the Department.

F7: “Last chance” agreements, usually those referring to drug or alcohol abuse by an employee, quickly focus then shorten the disciplinary process. Though termination can be immediate, most agreements take progressive steps of discipline that focus on specific behavioral changes. If the objectives of the agreement are not reached, the employee is terminated. Conclusions The well established policies and protocol provide the quality and uniformity needed for this county’s systems of evaluation, discipline and termination. Though the autonomy placed into the hands of each department head allows for discretionary decisions, the process involves multiple services and is a collaborative effort. Consequently, it is no surprise that the process is complex and time consuming. If the progressive steps of discipline for chronically poor performing employees are suspended, the process may become even more time-consuming, costly and affect the workplace adversely. The jury gives special recognition to department heads, managers, and supervisors for their efforts and time spent completing employee evaluations in a timely manner. 3/4 July 1, 2004

July 01, 2004 — Facing Up to Changes in the Jails July 1, 2004

9 pages 7 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The standards of professionalism and ability among the Sergeants and Correctional Officers in the jails are very high, not only their level of training, but pride in their jobs, their knowledge, understanding, dedication, and their concern for the welfare of the inmates.

F2: Jail booking staff and the mental health workers in the jails are doing an effective job in identifying and classifying the incoming offenders who are mentally ill.

F3: Testimony indicated that many of the stabilized mentally ill inmates, unless they are enrolled in some type of community program on their release, return to the jail within a short period of time. The closure of these programs will increase these numbers.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: A solution must be found to address the cycle of recidivism of the mentally ill. The long- term view must involve diverting them from a continuing process of re-arrest and detention, and into programs of supervised and responsible independent living. A system of procedures should be set up to monitor them when they have been stabilized in the jail, and linked to a mechanism for guidance and follow-through when they are released back into the community.

R3: A review should be undertaken to analyze the costs of long-term care of the mentally ill in the community, compared to the expense of housing and treating them in the jails for the short-term. The review should include a cost/benefit analysis of re-opening community treatment programs for the mentally ill where their interests, and the interests of society, can be better served, and whether programs such as F.A.C.T. should be re-established. Response to Findings Sonoma County Board of Supervisors - F4 Sonoma County Sheriff - F1, F5, F6 Required Responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Board of Supervisors - R1, R2, R3 Sonoma County Sheriff - R1, R2 Sonoma County Administrator – R3 Investigative Procedure Details Interviews The jury interviewed the following Sonoma County employees: Sheriff-Coroner Assistant Sheriff, Detention Division Captain, Detention Division Captain, NCDF Lieutenant, Detention Division 33 Correctional Officers and Sergeants in both jails. (23 interviews in the MADF, 10 in the NCDF). Classification Officers 8/9 July 1, 2004 In-jail Management and Staff of the California Forensic Medical Group. Director, Department of Health Services Section Manager, Department of Health Services Deputy Public Defender. District Attorney Chief Probation Officer. Manager, Forensic Mental Health Psychiatrists who work in the jails Mental health workers in the jails Risk Manager, Department of General Services. Director, Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) Program Members of the County Administrator's Office. Inmate Grievance Officer (MADF) The jury also interviewed the following individuals: Director and Staff members, Marin County-based non-profit organization that provides outreach programs for the mentally ill. Officers of the Santa Rosa Police Dept. Research and Reference Documents: Agenda Item Transmittal Report. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Meeting. February, 25, 2003. “Benefit Package for Sheriff's Deputies & Corrections Officers.” June 2, 2003. California Government Code. Section 3300-3312 October 22, 2003. California Jail Profile Survey/Annual Report 2002. “Characteristics of Suicide Attempts in a large urban jail system with an established Suicide Prevention Program.” May 2002. Forensic Assertive Community Treatment Project (Overview and 12-month outcomes) “Helping the Mentally Ill in Jails to adjust to Community Life: a description of a post- release ACT Program and its clients.” Inmate Rules & Information Handbook. Revised August 2001. “Mental Health - Internal Behavior Codes.” March 2, 2004. Overview of Field Services 2004 “Quarter Century of Suicide in a major Urban Jail, A.” July 1995. Sheriff's Department Detention Services/Planning & Research. September 2003. “Sonoma County Detention Facilities: pre-booking Medical & Mental Health Screening.” December 2001. Sonoma County Adult Detention Facilities: Programs & Services for inmates. (DD638- 1/98). Sonoma County Adult Detention Facilities: Rules & recommended discipline. September 2003. Sonoma County Sheriff's Department: inmate services. 2003. Sonoma County Sheriff's Department: New organization chart. July 2002. “Type II and III Facilities.” Board of Corrections – Procedures. March 2001. Multiple forms and reports on both jails, and on the Norton facility.

F4: Programs like Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (F.A.C.T.) although dealing with relatively small numbers (around 150 clients to date) have shown encouragingly high success rates in reintroducing mentally ill individuals to independent living in the community. A Marin County-based non-profit organization, supported by private, federal, and state funding, also operates supervised independent living programs in Sonoma County for the mentally ill. These programs have demonstrated success in reducing recidivism among this group, and in working towards a long-term solution. Other community-based initiatives are Project HOPE and SCIL (Sonoma County Independent Living), which are dependent on county and state funding. Many of these programs are closing or seriously threatened by a loss of funds. For example, the F.A.C.T. program will end July 1, 2004 because of the loss of state funds.

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: At this point in mid-2004 both jails are now in danger of being seriously overcrowded. Total capacity in both jails is 1,286 beds, with 85% of that (1,093 beds) considered optimum. The inmate census for both jails over the 10-month period July 1, 2003- April 30, 2004 was 1,079 although this is probably on the conservative side since ADP is reported on a midnight census, and the population can fluctuate during the day and exceed this number. Therefore, as overcrowding develops steps will have to be taken to relieve the pressure, and this has been done by the early release of selected inmates before completion of their sentences for specific non-violent offenses, or by the Supervised release on Own Recognizance program (S.O.R.) or by house-arrest and electronic monitoring.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Serious thought should be given to building a separate detention facility for the mentally ill, tailored to their needs. The grand jury recommends that this be established as a priority before an expansion to the MADF, since this is likely to be an important part of the solution to the overcrowding problem.

F6: Increased security at the minimum-to-medium security NCDF is an area of concern. As increasing numbers of unsentenced inmates are housed there instead of the MADF, additional pressure will be applied. The latter is a different kind of inmate for which the NCDF was not designed, and for which it is not suited. The sentenced inmates normally housed there have little incentive to walk away or cause trouble, since their sentences are finite and release is in sight. The unsentenced inmates tend to have a different mind-set, and as a result the supervision must be more intense.

F7: Evidence indicates that many mentally ill inmates receive as good or better medical care within the jails than they commonly do on the outside. Conclusions The jury found that the Sheriff's Department is running the jails efficiently. A professional job is being done in correctly identifying and classifying the mentally ill inmates, and seeing to their medical care. The Correctional Officers interviewed were knowledgeable, dedicated, and professional. The mentally ill population in the jails will continue to increase, as programs, 7/9 July 1, 2004 services, and clinics on the outside continue to be reduced or cancelled. Also, the increase in the percentage of criminal youth gang members in the community, out of all proportion to their numbers in the population as a whole, will continue to crowd the jails, and pose problems of management and control. Their increasing numbers are in danger of clogging the courts, and slowing the administration of justice.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R92-03: 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Thru April 3/9 July 1, 2004 The ADP is based on a census taken daily at midnight. It does not include inmates in the booking area who have not been housed. The actual number of inmates housed may fluctuate significantly. The projected ADP for fiscal year 2003-2004 is 1037. Actual ADP for the ten months ending April 30, 2004 was 1079. The table below gives a more detailed picture of the population of both jails, sentenced and unsentenced, as of February 20, 2004: Age Groupings Ethnic Groupings ⋅ 18-21 15% ⋅ White 62% ⋅ 22-25 17% ⋅ Hispanic 26% ⋅ 26-35 30% ⋅ Black 8% ⋅ 36-45 26% ⋅ Native American 2% ⋅ 46-55 9% ⋅ All others 2% ⋅ 56-65 2% ⋅ 66+ 0.4% Felons vs. Misdemeanants ⋅ Sentenced felons 26% Annual Bookings (projected 2003-04) ⋅ Unsentenced felons 44% ⋅ 17,355 ⋅ Sentenced misdemeanants 18% ⋅ Unsentenced misdemeanants 12% Average Length of Stay (days) ⋅ Sentenced male 75.4 Gender ⋅ Sentenced female 58.5 ⋅ Female 13% ⋅ Unsentenced male 7.3 ⋅ Male 87% ⋅ Unsentenced female 5.8 ⋅ All males 26.8 NCDF inmates in custody by time periods ⋅ All females 23.7 ⋅ Less than 30 days 30% ⋅ 31-60 days 18% ⋅ 61-90 days 12% ⋅ 91-120 days 13% ⋅ 121-150 days 13% ⋅ More than 150 days 15% These statistics on the jails' population are revealing. Almost three quarters (73%) of the population are between the ages of 22-45, and almost 1 inmate in 7 (15%) is under 21 years of age. By ethnicity the largest group of inmates (62%) are white, followed by Hispanics (26%) and African-Americans (8%). The average length of stay is approximately 2½ months for a sentenced male, and slightly less than 2 months for a sentenced female. The Mentally Ill One statistical segment is particularly disturbing, namely the increasing numbers of mentally ill inmates coming into the jails. This increase can be traced to the closure in the late 1960s of the state-operated facilities previously dedicated to their care. The mentally ill now constitute approximately 15% of the total population in both jails, and have increased by 58% since 2000. Most of the increase has been in the number of mentally ill inmates housed with the general population. Over the past 4 years the ADP totals for the mentally ill in the two mental health modules in the MADF have remained relatively constant at 71- 72 inmates (57 males and 15 females). Once stabilized, many who are not seriously ill can be moved from the mental health modules to modules housing the general population. As of the beginning of 2004 this number 4/9 July 1, 2004 was about 87. The total population of mentally ill inmates fluctuates at around 160, with an occasional peak over 170. The chart below illustrates how the mentally ill population in the jails has increased progressively over a 4-year period at a constant rate of 15-18% per year, with a total percentage increase over the period of 58.8%. Mentally Ill Jail Population Averages (based on quarterly samples) 160 140 135 120 118 100 101 85 80 60 40 20 0 Year 2000 Year 2001 Year 2002 Year 2003 A mental illness is generally classified as either DSM (Diagnostic Statistical Manual) Axis I, which includes individuals suffering from bipolar disorder, schizo-affective, schizophrenia, and other serious mental illness, or DSM Axis II which covers character disorders, antisocial behavior, and borderline personality disorders. A further complication to the situation is that most mentally ill offenders have a dual diagnosis, namely mental illness and some form of substance abuse. In the jails the mentally ill offenders on a given day generally range in age from 18-60, with the largest group in the 36-45 age range. A substantial percentage of the mentally ill are also homeless. When a mentally ill offender is booked into the MADF, a two-part process is carefully followed to assure that the inmate is accurately identified at the outset. The first classification is made through a progressive behavior-based system of numerical codes. These correctional codes range from ‘100’ (most acute) to ‘300’ (more stable) which are established by Classification Officers in the Booking area, based on their experience in recognizing speech and behavior patterns, and on responses given to specific questions on the booking forms. In a second step, individual mental health codes are assigned by the mental health workers in the jail. They review the Mental Health Booking Form, and have an evaluation interview with the inmate. The mental health workers also have access to an on-duty psychiatrist, or one that is on-call after regular hours. These mental health codes are alphabetic, and range from ‘A’ (inmates who are stable, mix with others, and require little to moderate direct supervision) progressively through ‘B’ and ‘C’ (more unstable and requiring more direct supervision) and finally to codes ‘D’ and ‘E’ (those who can be violent and anti-social, cannot mix, are dangerous to themselves and others, and require the maximum level of supervision and observation). If the inmate has been booked into the jail previously, a prior classification record will also be available from the database. The dual-classification for the most extreme mentally ill inmate, therefore, is ‘100/E’. In practice, this classification system relying as it does on human evaluations has proven to be effective. 5/9 July 1, 2004 In addition to the nurses in the jail employed by the California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG), there are 3 physicians who also work with CFMG, and who see patients on a regular basis for consultation and the prescribing of appropriate medication. There are also county psychologists and psychiatrists, who are on call as needed, and who see their patients on regular rounds within the MADF and NCDF. Every effort is made to restore the inmates to relative health, they are stabilized medically as far as possible, and their needs determined and supervised by the medical staff. But mentally ill inmates are often upset and confused when they come into the jail, and even when stabilized they still have to be protected and supervised. When they are discharged, typically with a two weeks’ supply of their medication and a prescription for refills, many of them are precarious, still require supervision, and need a phased and organized follow- up plan for independent living after their release. Criminal Gangs Although most of the gangs in Sonoma County are made up of Hispanic youth, there are also Asian, African-American, and White gangs. Although there are 26 recognized gangs in the county according to the Multi-Agency Gang Enforcement Team (MAGNET), there are basically two principal gangs, both Hispanic in composition, who currently dominate the field. As of mid- 2003, there were almost 3,200 known gang members and increasing, with a high percentage of them likely to be incarcerated in the jails in due course. They have one common denominator, which is violence and criminal activities, against each other and the general public. They establish arbitrary territorial boundaries of their own choosing and defend them against all comers. Inter-gang rivalries, adopted philosophies, and mutual hatred for members of other gangs are the basis for most gang activity. They are hierarchical, adopt a structured organization, and operate on a set of inverted values. Generally speaking, gang members have little fear of going to jail, and in some cases it can be a status symbol. Murder and extreme violence can be a rite of passage for younger members. Once a youth is a gang member, it is difficult (if not impossible) to break away without moving physically out of a neighborhood or to another part of the state. As a result of a joint effort by combined law enforcement agencies in California, there is an efficient county-wide Gang Task Force, which has been successful in continually gathering intelligence and in keeping watch over gang activities. When in the jails they are usually kept in close custody, allowed out of their cells only in small groups, and are tightly supervised at all times. They are a special problem because gangs have to be segregated for security, and in those cases where there are multiple prosecutions for a single crime, individuals are often segregated for logistical reasons as well as for their personal safety. At this point gang members currently make up 22% of the total population of both jails, and their numbers are increasing. In the MADF they currently represent 32% of all inmates, and 8% in the NCDF. As a result, this group takes a disproportionate share of jail resources to manage and control. Investigative Procedures The grand jury toured and visited both detention facilities, MADF and NCDF, as well as the Norton Psychiatric Facility, and had multiple interviews with those who manage the jails, with the Sergeants and Correctional Officers 'on the line', with those who are responsible for the inmates' medical and mental care, with members of the District Attorney's and Public Defender's Offices, and with County Administration officials. The jury also reviewed dozens of research and reference documents. For a detailed list of individuals interviewed and documents reviewed, see “Investigative Procedure Details” at the end of this report. 6/9 July 1, 2004 Findings F1. The standards of professionalism and ability among the Sergeants and Correctional Officers in the jails are very high, not only their level of training, but pride in their jobs, their knowledge, understanding, dedication, and their concern for the welfare of the inmates. F2. Jail booking staff and the mental health workers in the jails are doing an effective job in identifying and classifying the incoming offenders who are mentally ill. F3. Testimony indicated that many of the stabilized mentally ill inmates, unless they are enrolled in some type of community program on their release, return to the jail within a short period of time. The closure of these programs will increase these numbers. F4. Programs like Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (F.A.C.T.) although dealing with relatively small numbers (around 150 clients to date) have shown encouragingly high success rates in reintroducing mentally ill individuals to independent living in the community. A Marin County-based non-profit organization, supported by private, federal, and state funding, also operates supervised independent living programs in Sonoma County for the mentally ill. These programs have demonstrated success in reducing recidivism among this group, and in working towards a long-term solution. Other community-based initiatives are Project HOPE and SCIL (Sonoma County Independent Living), which are dependent on county and state funding. Many of these programs are closing or seriously threatened by a loss of funds. For example, the F.A.C.T. program will end July 1, 2004 because of the loss of state funds. F5. At this point in mid-2004 both jails are now in danger of being seriously overcrowded. Total capacity in both jails is 1,286 beds, with 85% of that (1,093 beds) considered optimum. The inmate census for both jails over the 10-month period July 1, 2003- April 30, 2004 was 1,079 although this is probably on the conservative side since ADP is reported on a midnight census, and the population can fluctuate during the day and exceed this number. Therefore, as overcrowding develops steps will have to be taken to relieve the pressure, and this has been done by the early release of selected inmates before completion of their sentences for specific non-violent offenses, or by the Supervised release on Own Recognizance program (S.O.R.) or by house-arrest and electronic monitoring. F6. Increased security at the minimum-to-medium security NCDF is an area of concern. As increasing numbers of unsentenced inmates are housed there instead of the MADF, additional pressure will be applied. The latter is a different kind of inmate for which the NCDF was not designed, and for which it is not suited. The sentenced inmates normally housed there have little incentive to walk away or cause trouble, since their sentences are finite and release is in sight. The unsentenced inmates tend to have a different mind-set, and as a result the supervision must be more intense. F7. Evidence indicates that many mentally ill inmates receive as good or better medical care within the jails than they commonly do on the outside. Conclusions The jury found that the Sheriff's Department is running the jails efficiently. A professional job is being done in correctly identifying and classifying the mentally ill inmates, and seeing to their medical care. The Correctional Officers interviewed were knowledgeable, dedicated, and professional. The mentally ill population in the jails will continue to increase, as programs, 7/9 July 1, 2004 services, and clinics on the outside continue to be reduced or cancelled. Also, the increase in the percentage of criminal youth gang members in the community, out of all proportion to their numbers in the population as a whole, will continue to crowd the jails, and pose problems of management and control. Their increasing numbers are in danger of clogging the courts, and slowing the administration of justice. Recommendations The grand jury is sensitive to the fact that current budget restrictions must necessarily affect any county decisions on the allocation of available resources. Nonetheless, we urge that these recommendations not be shelved on that basis, and that priorities be established as funds become available. R1. A solution must be found to address the cycle of recidivism of the mentally ill. The long- term view must involve diverting them from a continuing process of re-arrest and detention, and into programs of supervised and responsible independent living. A system of procedures should be set up to monitor them when they have been stabilized in the jail, and linked to a mechanism for guidance and follow-through when they are released back into the community. R2. Serious thought should be given to building a separate detention facility for the mentally ill, tailored to their needs. The grand jury recommends that this be established as a priority before an expansion to the MADF, since this is likely to be an important part of the solution to the overcrowding problem. R3. A review should be undertaken to analyze the costs of long-term care of the mentally ill in the community, compared to the expense of housing and treating them in the jails for the short-term. The review should include a cost/benefit analysis of re-opening community treatment programs for the mentally ill where their interests, and the interests of society, can be better served, and whether programs such as F.A.C.T. should be re-established. Response to Findings Sonoma County Board of Supervisors - F4 Sonoma County Sheriff - F1, F5, F6 Required Responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Board of Supervisors - R1, R2, R3 Sonoma County Sheriff - R1, R2 Sonoma County Administrator – R3 Investigative Procedure Details Interviews The jury interviewed the following Sonoma County employees: Sheriff-Coroner Assistant Sheriff, Detention Division Captain, Detention Division Captain, NCDF Lieutenant, Detention Division 33 Correctional Officers and Sergeants in both jails. (23 interviews in the MADF, 10 in the NCDF). Classification Officers 8/9 July 1, 2004 In-jail Management and Staff of the California Forensic Medical Group. Director, Department of Health Services Section Manager, Department of Health Services Deputy Public Defender. District Attorney Chief Probation Officer. Manager, Forensic Mental Health Psychiatrists who work in the jails Mental health workers in the jails Risk Manager, Department of General Services. Director, Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) Program Members of the County Administrator's Office. Inmate Grievance Officer (MADF) The jury also interviewed the following individuals: Director and Staff members, Marin County-based non-profit organization that provides outreach programs for the mentally ill. Officers of the Santa Rosa Police Dept. Research and Reference Documents: Agenda Item Transmittal Report. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Meeting. February, 25, 2003. “Benefit Package for Sheriff's Deputies & Corrections Officers.” June 2, 2003. California Government Code. Section 3300-3312 October 22, 2003. California Jail Profile Survey/Annual Report 2002. “Characteristics of Suicide Attempts in a large urban jail system with an established Suicide Prevention Program.” May 2002. Forensic Assertive Community Treatment Project (Overview and 12-month outcomes) “Helping the Mentally Ill in Jails to adjust to Community Life: a description of a post- release ACT Program and its clients.” Inmate Rules & Information Handbook. Revised August 2001. “Mental Health - Internal Behavior Codes.” March 2, 2004. Overview of Field Services 2004 “Quarter Century of Suicide in a major Urban Jail, A.” July 1995. Sheriff's Department Detention Services/Planning & Research. September 2003. “Sonoma County Detention Facilities: pre-booking Medical & Mental Health Screening.” December 2001. Sonoma County Adult Detention Facilities: Programs & Services for inmates. (DD638- 1/98). Sonoma County Adult Detention Facilities: Rules & recommended discipline. September 2003. Sonoma County Sheriff's Department: inmate services. 2003. Sonoma County Sheriff's Department: New organization chart. July 2002. “Type II and III Facilities.” Board of Corrections – Procedures. March 2001. Multiple forms and reports on both jails, and on the Norton facility.

July 01, 2004 — Got Water?

7 pages 11 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: Since 1949, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the Sonoma County Water Agency Board of Directors have been made up of exactly the same members. Testimony given to the grand jury indicated a perception that a conflict of interest exists due to the Board of Supervisor’s political responsibilities to both rural and urban growth development which could affect their land use decisions to favor urban growth without regard to possible water supply shortages in the rural areas. Additional concerns were that each supervisor necessarily represents a specific geographical area, but not the entire county; and that the Board of Supervisors lacks technical expertise regarding water issues.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Supervisors should establish an independent Regional Water Resources Management Board that takes a long term regional vision of all water issues facing this county, emphasizing sustainability. This new board would have authority over all water matters in the county. It would have its own funding sources and enforcement powers and would be the coordinating body for all the county’s water issues.

F2: There are approximately 40,000 domestic wells in Sonoma County, but some of these are not functioning. Prior to 1974, there were few written records of well locations and/or productivity. Presently PRMD issues approximately 500 permits for new well construction each year but the details of each well are not public information. Other than requiring a well applicant to initially show water availability, no other records are maintained by the county regarding individually owned wells. The issue is that the volume of groundwater currently being extracted in the county is not monitored and therefore is not definitively known.

F3: Presently no requirement regarding monitoring/testing of well water exists unless contamination is suspected. A proposed well pumping ordinance is being considered by the county Board of Supervisors regarding monitoring of well water level and output for new construction projects in water scarce areas or when a use permit is required.

F4: Paving roads and building homes and businesses over natural groundwater recharge areas prevents rainwater from reaching the groundwater table which in turn contributes to less available groundwater, additional storm drain water runoff into the river, more pollutants into aquifers, and increased flood damage. Proposed large commercial and residential developments may cover over natural recharge areas.

F5: Sonoma County’s proposed General Plan Update to the year 2020 includes a “Water Resources Element.” Sonoma County is in the forefront of California counties in proposing to add this element to its general plan. The primary purpose of the water element is to 3/7 July 1, 2004 ensure that Sonoma County’s water resources are sustained and protected. This water element includes objectives and policies to: (cid:131) Protect the quality of surface and groundwater resources (cid:131) Assure that there is sufficient groundwater for all new development (cid:131) Protect the natural environment (cid:131) Assure that public water suppliers manage groundwater to meet future growth. This water element is currently being reviewed prior to final adoption of the general plan.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: Cities receive their water supply from existing well fields and/or purchase it from the SCWA and/or other water suppliers. Although many cities in the county refer to water supply and conservation in their general development plans, they do not always consider the present availability and/or future sustainability regarding other water users outside their own city limits. In 2000 SCWA and its eight water contractors adopted an Urban Water Management Plan which helps to consolidate information for improved statewide water planning.

F7: The Water Advisory Committee (WAC) is made up of appointed representatives from each of SCWA’s eight water contractors. WAC advises the SCWA on programs, conservation efforts and water projects. Meetings are held monthly and are open to the public.

F8: There are many interested parties in Sonoma County that claim some amount of jurisdiction over groundwater. These include the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, SCWA Board of Directors, SCWA, WAC, Citizens Advisory Committee, PRMD, city and town councils, water conservation districts, federal agencies, California Department of Water Resources, California Environmental Protections Agency, and California Department of Fish and Game. There are many more private local organizations and out of county interested parties. Each is looking out for and protecting its own interests. Often, these organizations are unaware of the multitude of other interested groups and their activities and therefore lack a collective vision. There is currently no regional governing board to monitor and coordinate countywide water issues.

Related Recommendations (1)

F9: The Santa Clara Valley Water District is often cited as a benchmark for its progressive groundwater management and regulation. Santa Clara County has an independent, financially self-supporting water board that manages all the county’s water resource issues.

F10: In 1992 the California State Legislature adopted the Groundwater Management Act (AB 3030) which is set forth in the State Water Code: Sections 10750-10755. This provides a framework for groundwater management plans which may be adopted by any agency, city or county that provides water service. Approximately 170 public water supply agencies and several California counties have adopted a groundwater management plan. As an example, Santa Clara County successfully established a similar plan more than fifty years ago in response to severe water subsidence of their groundwater basin. Currently Sonoma County has no such plan.

Related Recommendations (1)

F11: Two of the most important components of a sustainable water system are public education and conservation programs. This includes water conservation measures like: (cid:131) Low-flow toilets and shower heads (cid:131) Use of water conserving natural landscapes and construction design (cid:131) Use of recycled water 4/7 July 1, 2004 (cid:131) Use of recycled water on golf courses and by agri-business and other heavy demand areas that do not require potable water (cid:131) Minimizing run off (cid:131) Water quality enhancement activities Conclusions For centuries, groundwater has been viewed as an endlessly renewable natural resource that is individually owned by the property owner. The most radical and necessary change for Sonoma County residents is to think of groundwater, not as an individual property right, but as a communal resource or commodity that must be intentionally managed and protected in order to assure its availability for today and sustainability for future generations. Representatives of the county, its cities and water suppliers should work cooperatively in order for all citizens to benefit. Groundwater conservation education must be implemented and vigorously promoted and enforced. Increased population, agricultural expansion and new construction, without implementation of a groundwater management plan, will put the future economic and personal well being of all Sonoma County residents at risk. The threat of out–of- county interests in Sonoma County water resources can be expected to escalate.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: It is recommended that all residents, businesses and agri-businesses recognize their water supplies are not infinite and that everyone’s water usage impacts the supply. It is everyone’s individual responsibility to educate themselves on water conservation and the resources available, and practice and integrate conservation into their daily living for the benefit of their community today and into the future. Information on water conservation can be found at: (cid:131) Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (707)-565-1900; http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd (cid:131) Sonoma County Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Division (707)-565-6565; http://www.sonoma-county.org/health/eh (cid:131) California Regional Water Quality Control Board (707)-576-2220 or (510)-622-2300; http://www.swrcb.ca.gov (cid:131) Sonoma County Water Agency (707)-547-1910; http://www.scwa.ca.gov (cid:131) City of Santa Rosa Water Conservation Hotline 5/7 July 1, 2004 (707)543-3985; http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us (cid:131) Santa Clara Valley Water District (408) 265-2607; http://www.valleywater.org Required Responses to Findings Sonoma County Board of Supervisors - F1 Required Responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Board of Supervisors - R1, R2, R3 Sonoma County Water Agency - R2 City Councils of: Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Rohnert Park; Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, and Windsor - R1, R2 Reference List “Adopt Amendment to Well Pump Test Ordinance and Authorize PRMD to Establish Pump Test and Well Monitoring Guidelines” and all attachments. County of Sonoma Agenda Item Summary Report. County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors. March 23, 2004. “Community Forum on Water, Winter-Spring 2004”. Water Bulletin. Ford, Robert. “Evaluation of Ground Water Resources: Sonoma County.” Introduction and Summary. Department of Water Resources. State of California Resources Agency. 1975. “Groundwater and the Rural Homeowner.” United States Geological Survey. 1994 “Groundwater in Water Scarce Areas” and all attachments. County of Sonoma Agenda Item Summary Report. County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors. November 4, 2003. Groundwater Management Act, AB3030, signed into law 9/26/92 (California Water Code Section 10750-10750.10) “Mission Statement”, “Policy Statement” and various charts, graphs and maps. O.W.L. Foundation. “Natural Resources.” General Plan for the Town of Windsor. “Outreach Efforts.” Water Advisory Committee, Sonoma County Water Agency. “Pilot Study of Groundwater Conditions in the Joy Road, Mark West Springs and Bennett Valley Areas of Sonoma County.” Kleinfelder, Inc. September 2003. “Position Statement on Sonoma County Ground Water.” Sierra Club, Sonoma Groups. “Proposal for Study of Water Resources Availability and Management in Sonoma County, California.” United States Geological Survey/SCWA. October 29, 2003. “Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency adopting the Urban Water Management Plan 2000.” April 17, 2001. Rohnert Park General Plan. “Sonoma County Water Agency Organizational Chart. FY 2002/2003.” “Water Agencies Explain Supply, Savings Issues.” The Sonoma Index-Tribune. July 4, 2002. “Water Mindbites.” Centers for Social Change. 2004. 6/7 July 1, 2004 “Water Quality and Water Resources.” Santa Rosa General Plan. Sonoma County Economic Development Board. January 2004. “Water Resources Element.” Sonoma County General Plan Update 2020. Draft. “What You Need to Know About Water Quality in Your Well.” Sonoma County Department of Health Services. November 2002. Pamphlet. Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department. January 2004. Newspaper articles from various newspapers on water issues. 2003 and 2004. Urban Water Management Plan 2000. Sonoma County Water Agency. Videotape of television program “Sonoma County 2004” with members of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. January 26, 2004.

July 01, 2004 — Holes in the Employee Benefit Safety Net?

5 pages 12 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: As an equal opportunity employer, the county is mandated to comply with federal and state disability laws. An employee who believes that s/he has suffered discrimination of any kind is encouraged to bring this to the attention of the Sonoma County Equal Employment Opportunity Manager. 2/5 July 1, 2004

F2: The county provides extensive benefits administered by Risk Management, including health coverage, retiree health coverage, insurance, retirement pension and long term disability.

F3: During the past decade, the county’s budgeted costs for workers’ compensation have increased 154%, resulting in annual expenditures of over $14,000,000 for FY 2003-2004. This prompted evaluation of the costs by the five major department heads whose workers’ compensation claims account for 78% of the county’s total workers’ compensation costs. The departments with the highest costs due to the nature of their work include Sheriff, Human Services, Probation, Public Works and Health Services

F4: Strategies recommended to reduce workers’ compensation costs include implementation of an improved Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP), a safety awareness summit meeting (June 2003), an audit of the county’s medical costs and a focus on returning employees to work as quickly as medically feasible through a Transitional Duty/Return to Work Program.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: All mid-level management, division directors, supervisors and employees must be instructed on a regularly scheduled basis and at least twice during the year beginning in September 2004 in the revised Illness and Injury Prevention Program with greater emphasis on departmental responsibility.

R4: Evaluation of the results of the pilot Safety and Loss Prevention and the Transitional Duty/Return to Work Program in the five major departments (Sheriff, Probation, Health Services, Public Works and Human Services) should be analyzed, and if cost effective implemented countywide.

F5: The waiting period for Short Term Disability has been reduced to seven days.

F6: The implementation in 2003-04 of pilot Safety and Loss Prevention and Transitional Duty/Return to Work Programs for the five major departments with the highest workers’ compensation costs is an attempt to reduce injuries and to return injured workers to work as soon as possible but at least within 90 days after injury.

F7: Since 1998, the average time for resolution for Long Term Disability Retirement, from application to date of acceptance of the retirement decision is 9.4 months.

F8: The Revised Employee Benefits Package is given to all new employees detailing essentials of the employee benefits provided to them and information on steps to follow when an illness or injury occurs. This was implemented in June 2003. Within one month of hiring, the majority of new employees receive an eight-hour training session explaining this manual.

F9: According to some employees, communication between representatives of unions, risk management, workers’ compensation and disability retirement is less than adequate, resulting in poor collaboration and ineffective guidance for the employees.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Disability Retirement Board and Risk Management must meet with union representatives as often as necessary, but at least monthly, to establish better communication and understanding.

F10: Qualified Medical Examiners (QME) are physicians appointed by the County to determine the medical needs of ill/injured employees requesting accommodation and/or disability retirement. These physicians may be qualified to evaluate the needs of injured workers but they do not always have the medical expertise required to determine the needs of employees who develop an illness.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should create a new position for an independent employee advocate who has medical and legal expertise to guide ill/injured employees who are unsure of their options through the various benefit systems to ensure they receive the appropriate outcomes.

R5: For employees who develop an illness during their employment, the evaluation and recommendations of the employee’s medical specialist should be given priority regarding accommodation and disability retirement if the county appointed Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) does not possess equal expertise. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations County Board of Supervisors - R1and R4 Human Resources - R1, R3, R4 Risk Management - R2, R3, R4, R5 Health Services - R3, R4 4/5 July 1, 2004 Human Services - R3, R4 Retirement Board - R2, R3, R5 Probation - R3, R4 Sheriff - R3, R4 Public Works and Transportation - R3, R4

F11: Reasonable accommodation for ill/injured employees does not seem to be applied appropriately in all departments. Some employees who requested accommodation, which is reasonable, perceived they have been rejected unfairly. Undue stress and anxiety arose in situations that could have been resolved with better communication.

Related Recommendations (1)

F12: The jury received unsolicited suggestions from management, union representatives and affected employees that an employee advocate position would benefit employees who 3/5 July 1, 2004 have difficulty navigating the system to better focus on the most appropriate solution for their particular situation. Conclusions Many complaints regarding reasonable accommodation and workers’ compensation should be resolved in a timely manner with the implementation of the revised 2003 Illness and Injury Prevention Program and the Safety and Loss Prevention and Transitional Duty/Return to Work Programs during 2003-04. The majority of new employees receive an orientation session within one month of hiring with instruction given regarding their employee benefits. This includes information on health coverage, life insurance, long term disability, deferred compensation, educational leave, safety measures in the workplace, ergonomics and the Employee Assistance Program. However, a major weakness is some ill/injured workers, with many years of service, still lack understanding of where to go and what to do in the event of illness or injury. An employee advocate, who is knowledgeable in all the options, is needed to guide these employees.

July 01, 2004 — New Legislation Needed: Juvenile Records July 1, 2004

5 pages 3 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: The jury was unable to determine how well CPS is meeting its obligations of providing required interventions and family services in accordance with its mission statement and governing regulations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: New legislation should be passed that includes the grand jury in the list of parties authorized to inspect juvenile case files under Article 22, “Wards and Dependent Children Records” of California Welfare and Institutions Codes, Division 2, “Children”, Chapter 2, Section 827 Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations None Requested Responses to Recommendations Member of the State Senate representing Sonoma County – 2nd District. – R1 Member of the State Senate representing Sonoma County – 3rd District. – R1 Member of the State Assembly representing Sonoma County – 1st District – R1 Member of the State Assembly representing Sonoma County – 6th District – R1 Member of the State Assembly representing Sonoma County – 7th District – R1 Research and Investigation The jury interviewed the following employees of the county: (cid:131) Director of Family, Youth, and Children Services Division (cid:131) Manager of Pre-placement Services (cid:131) Manager of Placement Services (cid:131) Manager of Valley of the Moon Children’s Home and Redwood Children’s Center The jury also interviewed 4 Complainants. 4/5 July 1, 2004 The jury reviewed the following documents: “A Guide to Reporting Child Abuse to the California Department of Justice” (Bureau of Criminal Statistics and Special Services), Effective 10/27/99.) “County Self-Assessment User’s Guide” Ver. 1.0 (CDSS), January, 2004. “Implementation of Child Welfare Services Outcome and Accountability System” (State of California Health and Human Services Agency, Dept. of Social Services, (CDSS), February 3, 2004. “Peer Quality Case Review: Overview of Process and Tools for Child Welfare Services Cases” (CDSS.) January, 2004. People v. Tulare County 107 Cal. App. 4th 488 (2003) Selected documents from CPS case files with approval of juvenile court judge. “State of California Program Improvement Plan (PIP) for Child Welfare Services Program”. (CDSS) January, 2004. “Sonoma County Family Youth and Children’s Services Division Mission Statement” (undated) “Understanding the Child Welfare System in California: A Primer for Service Providers and Policymakers”, (California Center for Research on Women and Family, November, 2002).

F2: The grand jury is not authorized to see CPS case files; limited access may be achieved only by means of a petition to the presiding judge of juvenile court, but it must be on specific items in a file which the judge deems sufficiently essential to the jury’s work to balance privacy constraints.

F3: Only parties to a case may be present at court proceedings of CPS. Juvenile Court records are not public documents. 3/5 July 1, 2004 Conclusions While it is possible for persons outside CPS to learn in a general way the processes it employs to carry out its work, it is very difficult for the grand jury to assess how adequately or equitably these processes are followed in specific cases, given the rigorous requirements of confidentiality in child protective services. Some of the factual issues raised by the complainants can be investigated by the use of waivers and petitions to the court, but systemic issues and questions of quality and equity require broader study and are not easily resolved by requesting some certain document or without the ability to do comparisons. In the cases reviewed during 2003-2004, the jury found that, to the degree it was able to discern, the appropriate processes were followed in an adequate way and questions and concerns raised by the complaint process were answered. At present, the grand jury is not included under Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 in its list, of parties authorized to investigate juvenile records. However, Penal Code section 925 describes the grand jury’s power to investigate county agencies such as CPS. New legislation rather than judicial decision will be required to address this contradiction, as the case, People v. Tulare County 107 Cal. App.4th 488 (2003) found: “Undoubtedly the grand jury plays an important role as a public watch dog…, but the standoff between the competing policies served by section 827 and Penal Code section 925, if there is such a standoff, can only be resolved, if it is to be resolved, by the Legislature.”

July 01, 2004 — Officer-involved Critical Incidents July 1, 2004

3 pages 6 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: The “Officer Involved Critical Incident Protocol” requires that investigations be conducted "free of conflicts of interest." For that reason the investigations were conducted by a law enforcement agency whose employees were not involved in the incidents. The District Attorney’s Office also participated in the investigations and had the authority to investigate separately.

F2: Upon completion of each incident investigation, the District Attorney’s Office reviewed the physical evidence, the transcribed witness interviews, photographs and all other evidentiary material.

F3: Based on the evidence, the District Attorney’s Office reached its conclusions and issued critical incident reports for six cases. In each, the District Attorney’s Office concluded there was insufficient evidence of criminal liability.

F4: The agencies that employ the involved officers conducted their own administrative investigations of each incident. Administrative investigations seek to determine if the agency's policies and procedures were followed in the incident and whether there could be improvement in those policies and procedures. They also make a determination as to whether any disciplinary action should be imposed against a particular individual or individuals.

F5: The District Attorney’s Office responded to last year's grand jury recommendation that the District Attorney’s Office routinely provide the grand jury with a copy of each critical incident report in a timely manner. Six incidents were reported in a timely manner. One incident was not investigated by the District Attorney’s Office.

F6: The District Attorney’s Office should send the civil grand jury a copy of its critical incident log. Conclusions The jury found that each of the critical incident reports reflects a thorough, detailed, and unbiased investigation by those assigned to the case. The conclusion of the District Attorney’s Office is clearly based on the evidence. The District Attorney’s Office completes reports in a timely manner. The jury concurs with the findings of the District Attorney’s Office that there was no wrongdoing on the part of any officer involved in the incidents reviewed. 2/3 July 1, 2004

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Each month beginning August 1, 2004, the District Attorney’s Office should send an updated copy of its critical incident log to the grand jury. Required Responses to Findings: None Required Responses to Recommendations: The District Attorney’s Office: R1

July 01, 2004 — Permit and Resource Management Division Compliance Review July 1, 2004

3 pages 3 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: There is no procedure in place to verify the implementation of all agreed upon

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors must initiate a review procedure to guarantee implementation of grand jury recommendations that have been agreed upon by county departments and agencies.

F2: Zucker Systems, a professional management consultant, was hired by the Board of Supervisors to conduct an in-depth operational review of PRMD. A final report was submitted to the Board of Supervisors in January 2001. The Zucker Report provided 271 detailed recommendations and identified 8 key priority areas.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: PRMD must complete implementation of the agreed upon recommendations in the 2000- 2001 Grand Jury Final Report.

F3: As of April 5, 2004, PRMD had not fully implemented agreed to recommendations made by the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 grand jury. Some of the agreed to recommendations from the 2000-2001 report not fully implemented were: (cid:131) R3. PRMD must have a formal written policy for ongoing training and cross-training. (cid:131) R4. Each Unit within PRMD must develop formal written procedures to implement and monitor PRMD policy for both training and cross-training (cid:131) R9. The various parts of the permit process must be integrated. Steps must be taken to ensure that a citizen gets complete and accurate information as to all procedures and permits that will be required before starting a project. The agreed to recommendation from the 2001-2002 report not fully implemented was: (cid:131) R6. PRMD must continue to make progress in implementing the recommendations of the Zucker Report. The Board of Supervisors should closely monitor this progress to assure that future milestones are achieved. 2/3 July 1, 2004 Conclusion Past grand jury recommendations are not always acted upon in a timely manner causing issues to resurface that could have been put to rest if implemented as agreed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: PRMD must continue to make progress in implementing the recommendations of the Zucker Report. The Board of Supervisors should closely monitor this progress to assure that future milestones are achieved.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: PRMD must provide a written timeline for implementing the agreed upon grand jury recommendations for approval by the Board of Supervisors by October 1, 2004. Required Responses to Findings Board of Supervisors - F3 Director, PRMD - F3. Required Responses to Recommendations Board of Supervisors - R1, R2, R3. Director, PRMD - R2, R3, R4.

July 01, 2004 — Santa Rosa City Schools Citizens Bond Oversight Committee:

4 pages 7 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: There is no legal prohibition against an elected board such as the Board of Education having in their regulations or bylaws a stipulation that members of an appointed committee such as the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee “serve at the pleasure of the board.” However, the jury heard testimony that should wording such as “removal for cause” be used instead, it could be “extremely hard” to remove members. Even so, according to an 11/16/2001 Bulletin issued by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, a law firm specializing in school finance, it is recommend that to establish independence for a bond oversight 2/4 July 1, 2004 committee it would be preferable that removal of committee members be for specified causes such as malfeasance or repeated absence.

F2: The first Committee meeting for which there are minutes on their website was held 10/3/2003, 19 months after the bond election. It took an additional 5 months for the Committee membership to reach the legal minimum of seven. By February 2004, the Committee had eight members, but was still short a member from one of the five designated demographic classifications. A Board member stated that it was difficult to recruit and maintain members despite heavy advertising.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board should devote more attention to staffing and supporting its Committee. All five specified demographic slots must be filled in accordance with law.

F3: The grand jury reviewed the line item performance and financial audits for the fiscal years ending June 2002 and June 2003 as compiled by an independent outside audit firm hired by the Board. Total expenditures for the two years were under budget as of June 2003, and the individual line items were generally under budget as well, contrary to one of the allegations of the complainant. Further, no exceptions to Proposition 39 rules were noted by the auditor in the performance audits. The Committee reviewed these audits also, and concluded that they were thorough and felt no need to duplicate the audits or investigate more deeply.

F4: The grand jury heard testimony that the Board changes audit firms every two or three years to maintain independence.

F5: The Committee must meet at least two times per year as required by Administrative Regulation 1172.4. At present, the Committee contemplates three meetings per year. The Committee must communicate with the public by internet and by an annual report. The grand jury reviewed the meeting minutes of other bond oversight committees in California and other states on the internet and found a wide variation in the quality and depth of their activities. For example, Eureka City Schools Committee meets almost every month, makes site visits and reviews Requests for Proposals.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The Committee should develop an oversight plan that encompasses the complete expenditure process for Proposition 39 construction funds. Review of the activities of other Committees may provide examples to emulate. Beyond the review of audits, the Committee could add value by active review of proposals and plans prior to expenditure and on-site visits. These activities are authorized by Proposition 39.

R4: The Committee should use its website to keep the public well-informed about the proposed and actual expenditures of Proposition 39 funds. Required Responses to Findings None. Required Responses to Recommendations Santa Rosa City Schools Board of Education – R1, R2 Citizens Bond Oversight Committee – R3, R4

F6: The grand jury heard testimony that the Committee had only enough time to review the audit reports. It had not engaged in other activities such as reviewing proposals or conducting on-site visits. Conclusions The grand jury finds that by having a “serving at the pleasure of the board” regulation, the Board is sending an unnecessary and unwise signal to the members of the Committee to maintain a low profile. This regulation may compromise the independence of the Committee that is intended by law to have oversight of Proposition 39 bond expenditures by the Board. The Committee is just now beginning its mission nearly two years after passage of Proposition 39. As a result of the long delay, there was minimal Committee activity from which the jury could evaluate its effectiveness. The Committee is planning a minimal program of oversight. According to its latest meeting minutes, it will meet three times per year, for about two hours each time. It will review the budget line items in the independent audit as provided by the Board. Considering the large amount of Proposition 39 money still to be expended, and the need for public confidence that this money is spent wisely, there is great opportunity for the Committee to actively exercise oversight and report fully to the public in a timely manner. The tentative Committee decision not 3/4 July 1, 2004 to duplicate the independent audit is reasonable. However, on-site inspections and review of proposals and plans prior to expenditure should also be part of its oversight.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Board should remove the wording specifying that “members serve at the pleasure of the board” from its regulations. Substitute language should be used to the effect that members and Chairpersons of the Committee may be removed by the Board with due discretion, but that it cannot be arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory.

F39: As a result of the long delay, there was minimal Committee activity from which the jury could evaluate its effectiveness. The Committee is planning a minimal program of oversight. According to its latest meeting minutes, it will meet three times per year, for about two hours each time. It will review the budget line items in the independent audit as provided by the Board. Considering the large amount of Proposition 39 money still to be expended, and the need for public confidence that this money is spent wisely, there is great opportunity for the Committee to actively exercise oversight and report fully to the public in a timely manner. The tentative Committee decision not 3/4 July 1, 2004 to duplicate the independent audit is reasonable. However, on-site inspections and review of proposals and plans prior to expenditure should also be part of its oversight.

June 15, 2004 — Mental Health Management Ills June 15, 2004

9 pages 5 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Morale Continues to Deteriorate

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: That the Department of Health Services (HS) management ensures that the Recommendation Teams’ action plans for change are clear, concise, actionable, and measurable in order that the 6-month post-implementation evaluation survey will be effective. 5/9 June 15, 2004

F2: Security and Workplace Upgrades Remain Incomplete

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: That HS management adjusts the evaluation survey date so as to ensure that quantified outcomes of the consultations’ effectiveness are in the hands of the grand jury by January of 2005. As the action plans developed by the Recommendation Teams are expected to be implemented in June 2004, more than a 6-month period is available to complete the assessment and meet this deadline. The plan for conducting the post-process survey should be forwarded to the 2004-05 grand jury.

F3: Complaints Related to Management Rise to New Levels

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: That HS management creates a brief rating scale to assess results of the consultation and to establish a baseline for measuring changes in staff-management relationships in the future. The survey form with its questions and numerical measurement model should be forwarded to the grand jury.

F4: Incomplete Consultant Assessment Precludes Evaluation of Effectiveness

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: That HS management creates written performance standards and expectations for MHS senior management aligned with the goal of improving skills in relating with staff as identified by this report and the consultation process; include these standards in the annual performance evaluation of both senior and line staff management effectiveness.

F5: Patient Care Potentially at Risk

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: In conjunction with staff, that the Mental Health Services Division (MHS) management establishes methods for acknowledging the specific and individual contributions of department members on an ongoing basis.

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R6: That MHS management clarifies with staff and put in writing the proper procedures for reporting various levels of safety concerns, being sure the forms, when required, are available.

R7: That HS management creates a form and provides staff with a process to report in writing to the safety committee, situations and conditions they consider unsafe or to document incidents in which their safety was jeopardized. A timely feed-back mechanism to advise a submitter in writing of the disposition of the report should be devised.

R8: That HS management provides all staff with instruction and information regarding anti- retaliation laws--federal, state, civil service or labor --- and the agencies and services provided to assist them if retaliation is perceived or feared from supervisors for any work- related reasons.

R9: That HS management affirms and delineate appropriate boundaries between medical and managerial authority in PES based upon The Medical Board of California’s Corporate Practice of Medicine Guidelines and the California State Business and Professions Code, Sections 2050-2079, Section 2190-2196.5, and Section 2400-2417.

R10: In view of the prolonged character of problems in MHS and in view of MHS medical staff bringing these issues to the Board’s attention at their meeting on March 23, 2004, the Board of Supervisors should report to the grand jury what requirements they will establish to ensure that HS management addresses grand jury recommendations. Required Responses to Findings Board of Supervisors

📋June 04, 2004 — Animal Regulation Division June 4, 2004

6 pages 15 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 15 findings

F1: The shelter staff and volunteers are very busy with animal intakes, adoptions, spays/neuters, euthanasia, care, maintenance and handling of animals. At times the shelter receives over 200 telephone calls a day on an inefficient telephone system.

F2: Although there are approximately 175 volunteer members, a much smaller core group of about 25 is consistently active in shelter operations. The Volunteer Board meets regularly. It approves approximately $3000 monthly, provided by fund raising events, for medical needs of shelter animals.

F3: Daily management of the shelter is affected by an insufficient number of paid staff to adequately attend to emergency call outs, animal care and shelter needs. This means that some duties such as temperament testing and other adoption preparations are not thoroughly completed, forcing employees to take on responsibilities not normally a part of their job description. Routine is interrupted and lines of command and communication are blurred. The staff is working under stressful conditions because of unfilled positions and a number of employees on disability leave.

F4: Disparate philosophies have created a rift between some permanent staff and volunteer members. This rift negatively affects day-to-day operations and interpersonal relations. The present management seems unable or unwilling to resolve these issues. For example, there are permanent staff members who are more likely to euthanize animals, whereas some volunteer members believe almost every animal should be saved.

F5: Many shelter operational problems stem from poor communication between management and shelter staff. Interviews revealed that management’s lack of appreciation for the staff and volunteers contributes to the daily stressful conditions at the shelter.

F6: The Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner previously proposed a new position of Assistant Animal Regulations Director that would help the shelter director to balance the demands of public service with day-to-day operations, but it was rejected by the County Administrator.

F7: The Volunteer Coordinator is a paid shelter staff member and among his many duties attends all Volunteer Board meetings acting as a liaison between the volunteers and shelter management. In addition, a major responsibility of the coordinator is facilitating effective communication between volunteers and permanent staff. Several volunteers stated that the coordinator lacks appropriate organizational skills for the job and is an ineffective liaison between the volunteers and shelter management.

F8: The shelter utilizes the assistance of inmates from the North County Detention Facility who require constant supervision. They perform basic maintenance tasks such as kennel cleaning, but may not always do an adequate job, which can result in unsanitary conditions that pose a disease problem to healthy animals.

F9: The shelter’s euthanasia rates are falling and are much lower than those at other counties’ shelters. The following statistics were provided by the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office for the year 2002: 3/6 June 4, 2004 Counties Santa Sonoma Barbara Solano Tulare Stanislaus Dogs Euthanized 759 1,174 1,771 4,430 8,028 As a % of Dogs 24% 68% 47% 75% 67% Impounded Cats Euthanized 2,488 NA 4,107 1,852 9,375 As a % of Cats 60% NA 78% 80% 88% Impounded

F10: In 2002, a very small percentage (3.5%) of dog intakes was transferred to another shelter or outside rescue group. For cats the figure was 3%.

F11: The volunteers with county assistance recently purchased the MAC van costing $140,000. It is used for spaying/neutering, adoptions, public education, and caring for lost/injured animals when disasters occur. An effective spay/neuter program is a major component to reducing unwanted dogs and cats in the county. There are now written procedures for the MAC van operation, which were implemented in early 2004.

F12: A recent public controversy revealed that certain shelter staff prepared and consumed an emu that was physically under the shelter’s care. Since this episode the shelter has implemented a policy that protects animals from being consumed. It requires all people who adopt livestock to be asked if the animal will be used for consumption, and if so, the adoption will be denied.

F13: Many licensed rescue groups/individuals believe that they are routinely overlooked as a source of help to the shelter. They perceive there is a lack of teamwork and cooperation between the shelter and themselves. It is their perception that shelter management has an unfriendly attitude toward them.

F14: The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC), appointed by the county Board of Supervisors, is charged with advising the Board of Supervisors on matters relating to animal welfare and providing support to the Animal Regulation Division.

F15: The present Agricultural Commissioner is one of the many county department heads who is retiring this year. Conclusions Compared with larger county departments with hundreds of workers, the budget constraints to the Animal Regulation Division, along with employees out on disability, seem disproportionately severe. These issues may ultimately increase costs to the county because of on-the-job injuries, stress related disabilities, increased euthanasia rates, fewer animals spayed/neutered, deteriorating working conditions at the shelter resulting in less-than-adequate care, fewer rescues, and a smaller number of adoptions and fostering of animals. 4/6 June 4, 2004 Low transfer figures show that the shelter does not fully utilize the resources of local and Bay Area rescue organizations and groups to maximize the number of live releases possible. Management would benefit from training on communication issues to foster a cooperative working environment. This will require a positive attitude to a commitment to make changes for the better, to compromise, to accept training opportunities and to move from a divisive philosophy to one of cooperation. Commendation The shelter depends heavily upon volunteer contributions of time and money. The volunteers and staff should be commended for their effort spent in acquiring the MAC van for public education programs, for clinics presented throughout the county, and for the shelter’s relatively low euthanasia rate.

Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Beginning immediately, the Agricultural Commissioner must fill vacant positions, especially at the critical Veterinary Technician and Field Officer positions. Until more staff can be hired, the commissioner should consider shortening the hours that the shelter is open to the public.

R2: The Agricultural Commissioner must create a new position: Assistant Animal Regulations Director, whose responsibilities would include managing and coordinating personnel and daily shelter operations, establishing a more effective public relations program and improving staff training programs.

R3: The Animal Regulation Division Director should install a more efficient phone system within one year to accommodate staff and better serve the public.

R4: The selection criteria for the next Agricultural Commissioner must include that s/he work closely with shelter management and demonstrate a passion for the welfare of animals. This individual must be committed to increasing adoptions, spaying/neutering more animals and transferring more animals to appropriate rescue groups thereby lowering euthanasia rates.

R5: The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee must become a stronger more independent advocate for the animals’ welfare and the division’s mission, ultimately leading to more animal adoptions and fewer occurrences of euthanasia. A good first step would be inviting representatives from local rescue organizations to serve on this committee.

R6: The success, or failure, of the MAC van program lies in its frequent usage and high visibility of its scheduled services within the community it serves. As such, an immediate priority of shelter management must be to vigorously promote the availability of the MAC van and to aggressively utilize it throughout the county.

R7: The shelter director must insure that the Volunteer Coordinator acquire more training on liaison skills, effective coordination of numerous tasks, and recognizing volunteers for their efforts on a continuing basis. Management must insure this training be put into practice, and documented by performance evaluations. 5/6 June 4, 2004

R8: The shelter director needs to utilize all opportunities, especially the Internet, to publicize the shelter’s many services. Required Responses to Findings Agricultural Commissioner - F4, F5, F6, F7, F13 Shelter Director - F4, F5 Required Responses to Recommendations The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors - R1, R2, R4 Agricultural Commissioner - R2, R3, R6, R7 Animal Welfare Advisory Committee - R5 Shelter Director - R6, R7, R8 “The greatness of a nation …can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” Mahatma Gandhi

June 02, 2004 — Adobe Creek Debacle and Restoration June 2, 2004

6 pages 11 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: The UAC Board of Directors consists of 12 adults and is financially accountable to the Petaluma Education Foundation.

F2: NOAA provides some technical support to the UAC and is supportive of the fish hatchery operation which includes steelhead trout that are on the Endangered Species Act list.

F3: The NOAA representative would like to offer the UAC program additional resources such as marine biologist presentations, information on available grants and more frequent participation in the program.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The UAC director/Casa Grande science teacher should as soon as possible take advantage of the pilot program opportunities as well as NOAA’s offer of additional resources that could enhance the UAC program.

F4: The water agency provides water to about 570,000 people in Marin and Sonoma Counties. It is charged with flood control and protection of the endangered species steelhead trout and coho salmon that inhabit Sonoma County rivers and creeks.

F5: Certain discrepancies were found in the following water agency documents: (cid:131) 1995 “Grant of Easement” to the water agency from City of Petaluma, which owns the creek bank that was clear-cut, does not permit maintenance of Adobe Creek landscaping and mowing of grass 3/6 June 2, 2004 (cid:131) “Revocable License #1279”, water agency to Casa Grande UAC to maintain fisheries in Adobe Creek had expired December 31, 2000

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The water agency must audit and update its agreements with the City of Petaluma, DFG and Casa Grande High School on Adobe Creek immediately.

F6: The Casa Grande principal was supportive but not knowledgeable of the administrative details of the UAC fish hatchery-Adobe Creek program. Although it was running smoothly and providing outstanding educational benefits, it appeared not to have been monitored administratively. This contributed to the lack of communication between the Petaluma School District and the other agencies that were involved with the Adobe Creek situation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Casa Grande principal must provide administrative support and an additional backup position for the UAC director by fall 2004. Required responses to Findings None Requested responses to Recommendations California Department of Fish and Game – R5 Supervisor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries – R5 Required responses to Recommendations: General Manager/Chief Engineer, Sonoma County Water Agency – R1, R4 City Council, City of Petaluma – R5 Director, Department of Water Resources and Conservation, City of Petaluma – R6 School Board, Petaluma School District – R5 Principal, Casa Grande High School – R2, R7 Principal, Petaluma High School – R2 Director of United Anglers Club/Science Teacher, Casa Grande High School – R3 5/6 June 2, 2004 Exhibit A: Adobe Creek near Sartori Bridge

F7: Although the water agency’s clear-cutting did not follow its plans at Adobe Creek it has assured the public that safeguards are in place to prevent recurrence.

F8: In January 2004, the water agency staff met with representatives of Petaluma School District, City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and NOAA concerning the Adobe Creek situation. The water agency has offered up to $150,000 a year for each of 5 years for a pilot program for environmental education courses at two Petaluma high schools plus a donation of 200 native trees for planting by UAC for restoration work on Adobe Creek. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors approved this proposal.

F9: Casa Grande and Petaluma High School principals are presently making decisions on how best to utilize the pilot program funds. Suggestions range from new science projects to replacement of a bridge that adversely affects the flow in Adobe Creek.

F10: The pilot program offered by the water agency will not be put into effect until Petaluma School District completes its written curriculum. It must then be reviewed by the pilot program technical advisory committee that includes representatives of the water agency, City of Petaluma, Petaluma School District, DFG and NOAA.

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: Petaluma School District high schools’ principals must coordinate all of the applications for the pilot program to assure collaboration in the preparation of curriculum in order to produce the most equitable programs.

R4: The water agency must implement its offer of a pilot program as approved by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.

R5: The City Council of Petaluma, Petaluma School Board, DFG and NOAA should commit necessary resources for their participation in this pilot program.

F11: The water agency also proposed a stream maintenance outreach and guidance program with the City of Petaluma. It requires the city to conduct community outreach regarding stream maintenance activities and to work with the water agency to balance flood protection and riparian habitat needs. Conclusions The focus of this report was on the water agency’s clear-cutting on a portion of Adobe Creek in Petaluma and its effect upon the fish habitat and creekside environment. The damage was distressing to some residents who saw it. It was particularly devastating to the UAC students, their director and community volunteers who had been maintaining it. Responsibility for Adobe Creek maintenance was confusing because portions of its creekside property are owned by various agencies and private individuals. The portion of Adobe Creek where the clear-cutting occurred is owned by the City of Petaluma. The water agency has an agreement with the City of Petaluma for maintenance of the stream bed but not the stream banks. A positive outcome of this negative situation was the water agency’s proposal to provide a restorative program for Adobe Creek and unique learning opportunities for students in Petaluma high schools on watershed environments. Commendations 4/6 June 2, 2004 The jury commends the dedication of the UAC director at Casa Grande for founding and guiding the outstanding student-operated fish hatchery/stream maintenance program that provides a unique learning and motivating environment for students, and creek enhancement for the community. The water agency, with Sonoma County Board of Supervisors’ support, is recognized for initiating the pilot program to provide the coordination, considerable financing, planting stock and environmental education programs for Petaluma high schools.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Director, Department of Water Resources and Conservation of the City of Petaluma should conduct community outreach regarding stream maintenance activities and work with the water agency to balance flood protection and riparian habitat needs within the city.

June 01, 2004 — Department of Fish and Game*

4 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

May 26, 2004 — Palm Drive Health Care District Parcel Tax Exemption Process May 26, 2004

3 pages 3 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: The Palm Drive Health Care District is currently planning a renewal of the parcel tax for 2006. The district agrees that the exemption and refund process needs to be reexamined and improved.

Related Recommendations (1)

F2: The parcel tax approved by voters did not contain an exemption process. The district now agrees that it must publish its exemption and refund procedure to the voters together with the description of the forthcoming parcel tax measure.

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: The present exemption and refund procedure is not evenly applied to parcel owners in the Palm Drive District. Conclusions The Palm Drive Health Care District policy of granting exemptions or refunds is in need of review for proper interpretation and implementation. In the past, granting exemptions had not conformed to the letter of the policy that the district had published. This had led to discrimination where some taxpayer’s in like circumstances had not received exemptions while others had. The creditability of the system is now in question. 2/3 May 26, 2004

Related Recommendations (1)

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: All requests for Hardship Exemption must be denied. The applicant must be referred to the program entitled: “Property Tax Postponement for Senior Citizens, Blind or Disabled Citizens”, to determine if they are eligible. Prior Hardship Exemptions must be immediately reinstated and the prior exempted amount collected. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to the Recommendation Palm Drive Health Care District Board of Directors - R1, R2, R3, R4, R5.

May 03, 2004 — City of Santa R Office of the Mayor*

8 pages 10 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: Impact fee funding for the design of the Southwest and Southeast fire stations has been requested and adequate funding identified within those two impact fee fund ResponsetoGJreport032404.doc ٠ * 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . accounts. The request has been included in the City's 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program budget request. Available funding for projects funded by these revenue sources is based on current year revenue estimates and unallocated reserves in each fund. Based on this analysis, the available SWADIF and SEADIF funding for the 2004-05 fiscal year is approximately $749,000 and $494,000. The Fire Department has requested $300,000 for the design of the Southwest fire station and $150,000 for the design of the Southeast fire station. We expect the designs to be completed within fiscal year 2004-2005. Additional funding will be requested for the construction phase during the following fiscal years. Since the 1995-96 fiscal year, revenue from the Southwest Area Development Impact Fee (SWADIF) totaled approximately $14.1 million and revenue from the Southeast Area Development Impact Fee (SEADIF) totaled approximately $727,000. These funds have been mainly used for improvements to the transportation infrastructure within these areas as detailed in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). A major impact to fire response times has been traffic congestion, which is improved when the transportation system infrastructure is upgraded. The identification of the Tiger Salamander in the Southwest portions of the City has had an impact on construction activity. We are experiencing a slowing of the development impact revenue as a result. The Southeast Area Development Impact Fee Study identified a 63% cost sharing from impact fees while the Southwest Area Impact Fee will fund 100% of the design and construction cost of the Southwest fire station. There are currently no funds collected in the Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) for new or relocated fire stations. If the current General Plan update adding the deployment recommendations for the new and relocated fire stations is approved by Council, the projects would then be included in the Capital Facility Fee Program. The City Council will address the requests during their June 2004 budget hearings for the 2004-2005 budget.

F2: The findings of the Santa Rosa Fire Station Location & Deployment Study - Final Report were submitted to and approved by the Santa Rosa Planning Commission on February 24, 2004 for inclusion into the City's General Plan. The item will now come to the City Council for approval. If approved, the project costs will be included in the Capital Facility Fee during the next fee update scheduled later this year. This change will allow the plan's implementation costs to be funded through the City's Capital Facility Fee account. 6 1 * , 1 1 1 C

F3: The Santa Rosa Fire Department has reviewed and identified impacts on all new projects including Annexations, Environmental Impact Reviews (EIR's) and Development Applications. The result is that fire protection impacts from projects are being addressed early in the review process. As an example, a developer submitting an annexation in the Northwest area of the City has proposed the establishment of a Community Facilities District to fund ongoing impact costs, including police and firefighters, to serve the development. Development impact fees can only be used for infrastructure and do not address the issue of annual maintenance and ongoing personnel costs. The existing property tax structure does not provide adequate funding for annual maintenance and personnel costs required to serve a development. Operational costs exceed $1.5 million per year for personnel, equipment and required resources.

F4: The Fire Department has begun utilizing GIS software to complete detailed analysis of response time, call volume, call type and impacts of growth on the current and planned fire station and unit deployment plans on an ongoing basis.

F5: The Department has completed a Design Ideas and Concept Report in an effort to identify a generic fire station design that may be used for future fire station additions. The report will be used to develop specifications for fire station construction.

F6: - Final Report that was completed by an outside consultant and provided to the City Council in Study Session on March 26, 2002. In order to meet the City's established goals for emergency response times, the study recommended that various fire stations be relocated and that three new stations be constructed. All of these projects are currently in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), but to date have not been funded. Those recommendations were as follows (also see the map attached as exhibit A): Fire Station 5 on Parker Hill Road should be moved from its present location • to the vicinity of Fountain Grove Parkway and Parker Hill Road. Fire Station 6 on Calistoga Road should be moved from its present location to • Middle Rincon Road. Fire Station 8 on Burbank Avenue should be moved from its present location to the vicinity of Sebastopol Road and Timothy Road. A new fire station should be constructed in the vicinity of Mendocino Avenue ٠ and Steele Lane. A new fire station should be constructed in the vicinity of Northpoint Parkway • and Kingfisher Way. A new fire station should be constructed in the vicinity of Kawana Springs Road and Franz Kafka Avenue. Impact fees have been and are continuing to be collected to fund the construction

F7: of fire stations in Southwest and Southeast Santa Rosa. The relocation of fire stations, however, is not being funded by the impact fees collected.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: City Response (R2) At this time, the City is unable to provide any realistic time schedule for construction of the new fire stations because it is unable to predict how soon the funds will be available to fund the cost which has substantially increased from the initial cost estimates. As → 1 × · · * . . . . noted in the beginning of the response, the City of Santa Rosa is in the final phase in the recruitment of a new Fire Chief. The new Fire Chief will be assigned the task of evaluating and validating existing deployment plans and response standards along with the implementation of an action plan with a designated goal setting process. The new Chief will also be assigned to evaluate possible interim measures that might be adopted until construction can be completed. Recommendation (R3) As a guide, the City Council must clearly define standards of response coverage in the form of a policy statement by the end of FY 2004-2005. As a guide, the City should use the self assessment program as outlined by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International, Inc. in their document Creating and Evaluating Standards of Response Coverage for Fire Departments. City Response (R3) As noted in the report, the City currently has response standards adopted as part of the General Plan. The new Fire Chief will be charged with the task of evaluating and validating existing deployment plans and response standards. The "Standards of Cover" concept includes an annual review process that will evaluate all factors required for system enhancements. The deployment plan will become a component of a Fire Department strategic plan and will be used as a living document to shape the future growth of the Santa Rosa Fire Department. Recommendation (R4) As soon as possible and as often as necessary, the Roseland Fire Protection District Board of Directors should proactively represent the needs and concerns of the citizens served by the District to the City Council regarding less than adequate emergency response times and any further delays in constructing the new and relocated fire stations. City Response (R4) It is the Santa Rosa Fire Department's responsibility, as the contractor for the Roseland Fire Protection District, to have dialogue with the Roseland Board of Directors on this issue. This item will be added to agendas for discussion at upcoming Board Meetings.

F8: During the ten-year period ending 2002, the population in the Southwest area grew at three times the rate of the City of Santa Rosa [62.4% vs. 20.9%]. Response time in that area is among the longest in the City because the majority of the growth has taken place in the outer boundaries of Fire Station 8, which serves that area. The following tables compare the number of emergency calls and response times over a six-year period for Station 8 to Santa Rosa citywide: Santa Rosa (City Wide) Station 8 (SW Area) 4 min. or 5 min. or 6 min. or 5 min. or 6 min. or 4 min. or less less less less less less (Goal is (Goal is (Goal is (Goal is (Goal is (Goal is 80%) 90%) 100%) 80%) 90%) 100%) 10432 414 819 1263 3880 7490 (27\%) (32\%) (62\%) (86\%) 2002 (54%) (83%) 2002 724 3271 5903 393 1035 8120 (29\%) (53\%) (75\%) 1997 (33\%) (60\%) 1997 (83%) City Response (Findings F6, F7 and F8) The Santa Rosa Fire Department has researched options for the implementation of the resources identified in the Deployment Plan. Several preliminary actions have already taken place: 1) Impact fee funding for the design of the Southwest and Southeast fire stations has been requested and adequate funding identified within those two impact fee fund ResponsetoGJreport032404.doc ٠ * 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . accounts. The request has been included in the City's 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program budget request. Available funding for projects funded by these revenue sources is based on current year revenue estimates and unallocated reserves in each fund. Based on this analysis, the available SWADIF and SEADIF funding for the 2004-05 fiscal year is approximately $749,000 and $494,000. The Fire Department has requested $300,000 for the design of the Southwest fire station and $150,000 for the design of the Southeast fire station. We expect the designs to be completed within fiscal year 2004-2005. Additional funding will be requested for the construction phase during the following fiscal years. Since the 1995-96 fiscal year, revenue from the Southwest Area Development Impact Fee (SWADIF) totaled approximately $14.1 million and revenue from the Southeast Area Development Impact Fee (SEADIF) totaled approximately $727,000. These funds have been mainly used for improvements to the transportation infrastructure within these areas as detailed in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). A major impact to fire response times has been traffic congestion, which is improved when the transportation system infrastructure is upgraded. The identification of the Tiger Salamander in the Southwest portions of the City has had an impact on construction activity. We are experiencing a slowing of the development impact revenue as a result. The Southeast Area Development Impact Fee Study identified a 63% cost sharing from impact fees while the Southwest Area Impact Fee will fund 100% of the design and construction cost of the Southwest fire station. There are currently no funds collected in the Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) for new or relocated fire stations. If the current General Plan update adding the deployment recommendations for the new and relocated fire stations is approved by Council, the projects would then be included in the Capital Facility Fee Program. The City Council will address the requests during their June 2004 budget hearings for the 2004-2005 budget. 2) The findings of the Santa Rosa Fire Station Location & Deployment Study - Final Report were submitted to and approved by the Santa Rosa Planning Commission on February 24, 2004 for inclusion into the City's General Plan. The item will now come to the City Council for approval. If approved, the project costs will be included in the Capital Facility Fee during the next fee update scheduled later this year. This change will allow the plan's implementation costs to be funded through the City's Capital Facility Fee account. 6 1 * , 1 1 1 C 3) The Santa Rosa Fire Department has reviewed and identified impacts on all new projects including Annexations, Environmental Impact Reviews (EIR's) and Development Applications. The result is that fire protection impacts from projects are being addressed early in the review process. As an example, a developer submitting an annexation in the Northwest area of the City has proposed the establishment of a Community Facilities District to fund ongoing impact costs, including police and firefighters, to serve the development. Development impact fees can only be used for infrastructure and do not address the issue of annual maintenance and ongoing personnel costs. The existing property tax structure does not provide adequate funding for annual maintenance and personnel costs required to serve a development. Operational costs exceed $1.5 million per year for personnel, equipment and required resources. 4) The Fire Department has begun utilizing GIS software to complete detailed analysis of response time, call volume, call type and impacts of growth on the current and planned fire station and unit deployment plans on an ongoing basis. 5) The Department has completed a Design Ideas and Concept Report in an effort to identify a generic fire station design that may be used for future fire station additions. The report will be used to develop specifications for fire station construction. 6) The Fire Department is in an active search for Federal, State and Local funding opportunities to acquire resources. We have obtained two grants for equipment in the past from Homeland Security "FIRE" Grants. In addition, we have received a substantial amount of Weapons of Mass Destruction equipment through grant awards. 7) Current work at the State and local level regarding public safety funding and resource needs may present new options for funding in the future. 8) We are actively pursuing a fire station site in the vicinity of Mendocino Avenue and Chanate Road for a new fire station. Once a location is identified we will request funds for the land acquisition. 9) We have identified a potential fire station site adjacent to an existing Utility Department water tank site in the vicinity of Fountaingrove Parkway and Parker Hill Road. If the site proves to be adequate we will request that the Council administratively reserve the site for the construction of a fire station. Funding for the acquisition would then be requested in the budget. 10) We are researching deployment alternatives such as the relocation of a fire engine, a temporary fire station and other alternatives that may allow us to make an effective impact on deployment within a shortened time period. . . •, . . .

F9: We have identified a potential fire station site adjacent to an existing Utility Department water tank site in the vicinity of Fountaingrove Parkway and Parker Hill Road. If the site proves to be adequate we will request that the Council administratively reserve the site for the construction of a fire station. Funding for the acquisition would then be requested in the budget.

F10: We are researching deployment alternatives such as the relocation of a fire engine, a temporary fire station and other alternatives that may allow us to make an effective impact on deployment within a shortened time period. . . •, . . .

February 20, 2004 — Santa Rosa Fire Station Deployment February 20, 2004

6 pages 8 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: The Santa Rosa Fire Department is responsible for protecting life, property, and the environment from fire, explosion and hazardous materials incidents. The Fire Department responds to calls including structure, wild land and other fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials incidents, automobile accidents, and citizen calls for other assistance.

F2: The Santa Rosa General Plan adopted by the City Council on June 18, 2002 establishes as Policy under PSF-E-1: “Provide for citizen safety through expedient response to emergency calls”. It continues: “The fire response goal is 4 minutes to 80 percent of emergency calls, 5 minutes to 90 percent of emergency calls, and 6 minutes or less to all emergency calls”. This response goal is not being met. Emergency response times are as follows: For 2002, actual performance across all 9 Santa Rosa area fire stations was: a. 4 minutes or less 32% of the time vs. 80% goal b. 5 minutes or less 62% of the time vs. 90% goal c. 6 minutes or less 86% of the time vs. 100% goal.

Related Recommendations (5)

R1: The City Council must provide the funding in FY 2004-2005 for designing and constructing the new and relocated fire stations in the Southwest Area of Santa Rosa as recommended in the Santa Rosa Fire Station Location & Deployment Study – Final Report in order to bring the response times in line with the established goals of the City.

R2: The City Council must promptly establish a time table for designing and constructing the new fire stations to be located in the vicinity of Mendocino Avenue and Steele Lane, Kawana Springs Road and Franz Kafka Avenue, and the relocation of Fire Stations 5 and 6.

R3: As a guide, the City Council must clearly define standards of response coverage in the form of a policy statement by the end of FY 2004-2005. As a guide, the City should use the self-assessment program as outlined by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International, Inc. in their document Creating and Evaluating Standards of Response Coverage for Fire Departments.

R4: As soon as possible and as often as necessary, the Roseland Fire Protection District Board of Directors should proactively represent the needs and concerns of the citizens served by the District to the City Council regarding less than adequate emergency response times and any further delays in constructing the new and relocated fire stations. Required Responses to Findings Santa Rosa City Council - F6, F7, F8. Required Responses to Recommendations Santa Rosa City Council - R1, R2, R3 Roseland Fire Protection District Board of Directors – R4 5/6 February 20, 2004 Exhibit A: Firescope, Inc. “Proposed Fire Station Locations.” Santa Rosa Fire Station Location & Deployment Study. March 2002.

R6: R3. As a guide, the City Council must clearly define standards of response coverage in the form of a policy statement by the end of FY 2004-2005. As a guide, the City should use the self-assessment program as outlined by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International, Inc. in their document Creating and Evaluating Standards of Response Coverage for Fire Departments. R4. As soon as possible and as often as necessary, the Roseland Fire Protection District Board of Directors should proactively represent the needs and concerns of the citizens served by the District to the City Council regarding less than adequate emergency response times and any further delays in constructing the new and relocated fire stations. Required Responses to Findings Santa Rosa City Council - F6, F7, F8. Required Responses to Recommendations Santa Rosa City Council - R1, R2, R3 Roseland Fire Protection District Board of Directors – R4 5/6 February 20, 2004 Exhibit A: Firescope, Inc. “Proposed Fire Station Locations.” Santa Rosa Fire Station Location & Deployment Study. March 2002.

F3: The City operates eight fire stations including (under agreement dated December 20, 1977 and February 8, 1983) the Roseland Fire Protection District station. Both of these agreements state that the City will provide fire protection service in the District consistent with the fire protection provided within the City limits. The City also has an agreement with the Rincon Valley Fire District which integrates its station into the citywide response matrix.

F4: In 1982 the last City fire station was constructed, Station 2 located on Stony Point Road. Since then, the City’s population has grown from 88,100 in 1982, to 151,900 in 2002, or about 72% growth. And during that same period, the number of emergency calls per year to the Fire Department increased from 4,709 to 16,301, or more than 246% - three times faster than the population growth rate.

F5: In October 1999 the Fire Department prepared the Final 2-In/2-Out Report in response to a January, 1998 OSHA and subsequently May, 1999 Cal OSHA mandate requiring all firefighters to wear Self Contained Breathing Apparatus, to operate in a “buddy system” and station more than one firefighter outside when firefighters are inside of a burning building making an interior attack on a structure fire. Based on this report the City funded additional personnel and equipment. In addition the Fire Department proposed that a Fire Station Locations and Deployment Analysis be undertaken.

F6: The City authorized the Santa Rosa Fire Station Location & Deployment Study – Final Report which was completed by an outside consultant and provided to the City Council in Study Session on March 26, 2002. In order to meet the City’s established goals for emergency response times, the study recommended that various fire stations be relocated 3/6 February 20, 2004 and that three new stations be constructed. All of these projects are currently in the City’s “Capital Improvement Program” (CIP), but to date have not been funded. Those

Related Recommendations (3)

F7: Impact fees have been and are continuing to be collected to fund the construction of fire stations in Southwest and Southeast Santa Rosa. The relocation of fire stations, however, is not being funded by the impact fees collected.

Related Recommendations (2)

F8: During the ten year period ending 2002, the population in the Southwest area grew at three times the rate of the City of Santa Rosa [62.4% vs. 20.9%]. Response time in that area is among the longest in the City because the majority of the growth has taken place in the outer boundaries of Fire Station 8 which serves that area. The following tables compare the number of emergency calls and response times over a six year period for Station 8 to Santa Rosa city-wide: Station 8 (SW Area) Santa Rosa City-wide 4 min. 5 min. 6 min. 4 min. 5 min. 6 min. or less or less or less or less or less or less (goal is (goal is (goal is (goal is (goal is (goal is 80%) 90%) 100%) 80%) 90%) 100%) 2002 414 819 1263 2002 3880 7490 10432 (27%) (54%) (83%) (32%) (62%) (86%) 1997 393 724 1035 1997 3271 5903 8120 (29%) (53%) (75%) (33%) (60%) (83%) Conclusions Because of the large population increase and longer response times in Southwest Santa Rosa, there appears to be an immediate need to relocate station 8 and construct a new station on Northpoint Parkway. The City will need to be more creative in the deployment of Fire Department personnel to staff an additional station in the Southwest Area. Because of possible operating budget restraints it may be necessary to spread engine companies in order to staff the additional station and thereby provide resources closer to the response area. Emergency response times will never meet the goals stated in the General Plan until the remaining recommendations in the Santa Rosa Fire Station Location & Deployment Study – Final Report (see F6 above) are fully implemented. 4/6 February 20, 2004

Related Recommendations (3)

December 22, 2003 — United Anglers Casa Grande High School*

7 pages 1 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings

F1832: JUL 07 RECT June 30th, 2004 GRAND JURY Mr. Jacob Bayless, Foreman Sonoma County Grand Jury Dear Sir: My apology for this response being late as I have just returned from vacation - June 29th R3 The UAC director/Casa Grande science teacher should as soon as possible take advantage of the pilot program opportunities as well as NOAA's offer of additional resources that could enhance the UAC program. Response - As the UAC director/Casa Grande Science teacher I will consider any opportunities to improve our program - when and if they are offered. The United Anglers restoration program has been activity involved with NOAA over the past years - see attached materials on watershed activities. Jon Just "Keep the Dream Alive" NAFS SANIA RUSA 12 22 03 17:58 FAX 707578:435 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southwest Region 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 Santa Rosa, California 95404 December 22, 2003 Tom Furrer Casa Grande High School 333 Casa Grande Road Petaluma, California 94954 Dear Tom, In light of the recent events concerning flood control and restoration projects in Adobe Creek, and the question of liability associated with the United Anglers of Casa Grande High School anadromous fish and restoration program, I would like to reaffirm NOAA Fisheries support and partnership with the school. In addition, I would like to commend the students for the continuing work they do, and to acknowled ge their dedication and contribution to recover listed steelhead. The issue of vegetation management and flood control is a topic I deal with throughout Central California. There are many creeks where conflicts arise between protection of property and the conservation of salmon ds listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The responsibility of maintaining waterways and core erving listed salmonids falls on the landowners. To that end, I want to reassure the students that they are not liable for the restoration activities they conduct in Adobe Creek. NOAA Fisheries is sensitive to the issue of protecting private property from flooding. However, the protection of private property does not have to put landowners in conflict with the ESA. Recovery and restoration of salt ion and steelhead will only result when we all have a common long-term vision, balance needs and acknowledge that we all have a part to play in recovery planning. There is no doubt in my mind that United Anglers, the City of Petaluma, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and NOVA Fisheries can establish a partnership which utilizes and compounds our resources and valls for a common goal. The United Anglers of Casa Grande High School program is an essential and key element to the restoration of watersheds in Pet iluna. The Program has already demonstrated many successes and leaves a legacy of environmental conservation for the next generation of students to follow. More than anything. I am encouraged that the students are developing an environmental awareness and leadership skills for the future. I want every student in your classroom to know how much NOAA Fisheries values the r work ethics, and the work they do. 2003 MFS SANTA ROSA 2/22 00 17:59 FA) 7075793435 . . At any time my staff, or I can be of assistance to your program please let me know. I would also be pleased to address your class on this, or any ESA issue. Sincerely, Istual Jacker Patrick J. Rutten, Supervisor Protected Resources Division cc: Rod McIrmis, NOAA Fisheries Petaluma School Board . Dennis M. Barry, AICP Contra Community Development Director Community osta Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1227 February 27, 2004 Tom Furrer Casa Grande High School Director/Instructor 333 Casa Grande Road Petaluma, CA 94954 Dear Mr. Furrer: On behalf of the Contra Costa Watershed Forum, thank you very much for your inspirational presentation at the Contra Costa County Creek and Watershed Symposium. As you know more than three hundred people attended the event, representing a broad cross section of community, from local and state agencies to organizations and educational institutions. Response to the event in general, and to the speakers more specifically, was overwhelmingly positive. And the presentation by the United Anglers of Casa Grande was the runaway hit of the day. Your commitment and dedication was a big inspiration to people in Contra Costa County. Recognizing the importance of your contribution to this event, the Contra Costa Watershed Forum on January 14th unanimously approved awarding you the enclosed Certificate of Appreciation. Please accept this as a small gesture of our appreciation. Sincerely. John Kopchik and Kae Ono Staff for the Symposium enclosure 1 CF Industries, lac. ONE SALEM LAKE DRIVE LONG GROVE, ILLINOIS 60047 847/438-9500 September 13, 2002 Dr. Carol Wong Superintendent Petaluma School District 200 Douglas Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Dr. Wong: Congratulations to Casa Grande High School and the United Anglers of Casa Grande in receiving the CF Industries National Watershed Award. It was a pleasure to visit Casa Grande High School and video tape Tom Furrer and his students for the watershed award ceremony scheduled in Washington, D.C. on September 26, 2002. The student-lead Adobe Creek Restoration Project is one of the finest programs I have seen in all of my years of involvement in the Watershed Award program. Tom's dedication and the hard work of the students serve as an excellent example of initiative and commitment of spirit. We will be forwarding copies of the press releases for the award ceremony of September 26, 2002, and a copy to Torn for use with the local media. Should you like to learn more about our company and the watershed recognition program, please visit our web site at www.cfindustries.com. Again, congratulations to Tom and students of Casa Gande High School. Sincerely, Sugar March Tamien Hook Media Specialist TH:co ,/cc: Tom Furrer CHENT OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, California 90802-4213 United Anglers of Casa Grande High School Habitat Restoration Partner 1999 - 2003 Citation The National Marine Fisheries Service proudly adopts United Anglers of Casa Grande High School as the first student program to be adopted into its new anadromous fish habitat restoration initiative. This is the NMFS High School Habitat Restoration Partnership program. The criteria for adoption were not created by fishery bureaucrats, but by the accomplishments of Casa Grande High School students in Adobe Creek. These criteria, that other student programs must meet as well, include the following: A dedicated faculty advisor in fishery habitat conservation; a strong partnership with its community; an anadromous stream conservation or restoration project; a watershed or ecosystem approach to stream conservation; an outreach plan to educate other students and the public about fish habitats; and a strong student commitment to habitat protection. The NMFS will adopt that school as a partner in salmon and steelhead habitat restoration, committed to providing modest financial support for field supplies and equipment, classroom materials, and other educational and outreach materials. It further commits to being the new partner's mentor, providing advice, internships, field trips, classroom instruction, career counseling, and other appropriate educational support. United Anglers of Casa Grande High School is a prototype NMFS partnership for other high schools in California. Should this four-year program be highly successful, it may be expanded beyond salmon and steelhead watersheds to marine pelagic and groundfish habitats. Congratulations to all members of the United Anglers of Casa Grande High School and I look forward to this new partnership with you. November 7, 1998 William J. SogarthWilliam T. Hogarth, Ph.D. Regional Administrator Printed on Recurled Paner UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, California 90802-4213 HABITAT RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP UNITED ANGLERS OF CASA GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL November 7, 1998 Effective this date the National Marine Fisheries Service adopts into its Habitat Restoration Partnership the students of United Anglers of Casa Grande High School, Petaluma, California. This adoption commits United Anglers to meet criteria established for this adoption and commits the National Marine Fisheries Service to providing the mentor support identified herein. United Anglers Agrees To: Dedicate at least one faculty science advisor to this partnership; support students interested in college preparatory classes with emphasis in fishery or habitat conservation careers; adopt a nearby creek as a salmon or steelhead trout habitat restoration project; take a watershed approach in restoring that creek; engage the local community in their restoration work; develop an outreach project or program to educate the community and other schools in salmon and steelhead habitat conservation and restoration; and fulfill this commitment for four years. National Marine Fisheries Service Agrees To: Dedicate one career employee as a partnership mentor; provide modest funding to assist in acquiring classroom and field equipment; participate in science and career fairs; seek opportunities to engage students in actual problems in the field; provide classroom instruction; provide student career counseling; provide student intern tasks; and fulfill this commitment for four years. United Anglers of Casa Grande High School National Marine Fisheries Service Petaluma, California Long Beach, California

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: The UAC director/Casa Grande science teacher should as soon as possible take advantage of the pilot program opportunities as well as NOAA's offer of additional resources that could enhance the UAC program. Response - As the UAC director/Casa Grande Science teacher I will consider any opportunities to improve our program - when and if they are offered. The United Anglers restoration program has been activity involved with NOAA over the past years - see attached materials on watershed activities. Jon Just "Keep the Dream Alive" NAFS SANIA RUSA 12 22 03 17:58 FAX 707578:435 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southwest Region 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 Santa Rosa, California 95404 December 22, 2003 Tom Furrer Casa Grande High School 333 Casa Grande Road Petaluma, California 94954 Dear Tom, In light of the recent events concerning flood control and restoration projects in Adobe Creek, and the question of liability associated with the United Anglers of Casa Grande High School anadromous fish and restoration program, I would like to reaffirm NOAA Fisheries support and partnership with the school. In addition, I would like to commend the students for the continuing work they do, and to acknowled ge their dedication and contribution to recover listed steelhead. The issue of vegetation management and flood control is a topic I deal with throughout Central California. There are many creeks where conflicts arise between protection of property and the conservation of salmon ds listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The responsibility of maintaining waterways and core erving listed salmonids falls on the landowners. To that end, I want to reassure the students that they are not liable for the restoration activities they conduct in Adobe Creek. NOAA Fisheries is sensitive to the issue of protecting private property from flooding. However, the protection of private property does not have to put landowners in conflict with the ESA. Recovery and restoration of salt ion and steelhead will only result when we all have a common long-term vision, balance needs and acknowledge that we all have a part to play in recovery planning. There is no doubt in my mind that United Anglers, the City of Petaluma, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and NOVA Fisheries can establish a partnership which utilizes and compounds our resources and valls for a common goal. The United Anglers of Casa Grande High School program is an essential and key element to the restoration of watersheds in Pet iluna. The Program has already demonstrated many successes and leaves a legacy of environmental conservation for the next generation of students to follow. More than anything. I am encouraged that the students are developing an environmental awareness and leadership skills for the future. I want every student in your classroom to know how much NOAA Fisheries values the r work ethics, and the work they do. 2003 MFS SANTA ROSA 2/22 00 17:59 FA) 7075793435 . . At any time my staff, or I can be of assistance to your program please let me know. I would also be pleased to address your class on this, or any ESA issue. Sincerely, Istual Jacker Patrick J. Rutten, Supervisor Protected Resources Division cc: Rod McIrmis, NOAA Fisheries Petaluma School Board . Dennis M. Barry, AICP Contra Community Development Director Community osta Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1227 February 27, 2004 Tom Furrer Casa Grande High School Director/Instructor 333 Casa Grande Road Petaluma, CA 94954 Dear Mr. Furrer: On behalf of the Contra Costa Watershed Forum, thank you very much for your inspirational presentation at the Contra Costa County Creek and Watershed Symposium. As you know more than three hundred people attended the event, representing a broad cross section of community, from local and state agencies to organizations and educational institutions. Response to the event in general, and to the speakers more specifically, was overwhelmingly positive. And the presentation by the United Anglers of Casa Grande was the runaway hit of the day. Your commitment and dedication was a big inspiration to people in Contra Costa County. Recognizing the importance of your contribution to this event, the Contra Costa Watershed Forum on January 14th unanimously approved awarding you the enclosed Certificate of Appreciation. Please accept this as a small gesture of our appreciation. Sincerely. John Kopchik and Kae Ono Staff for the Symposium enclosure 1 CF Industries, lac. ONE SALEM LAKE DRIVE LONG GROVE, ILLINOIS 60047 847/438-9500 September 13, 2002 Dr. Carol Wong Superintendent Petaluma School District 200 Douglas Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Dr. Wong: Congratulations to Casa Grande High School and the United Anglers of Casa Grande in receiving the CF Industries National Watershed Award. It was a pleasure to visit Casa Grande High School and video tape Tom Furrer and his students for the watershed award ceremony scheduled in Washington, D.C. on September 26, 2002. The student-lead Adobe Creek Restoration Project is one of the finest programs I have seen in all of my years of involvement in the Watershed Award program. Tom's dedication and the hard work of the students serve as an excellent example of initiative and commitment of spirit. We will be forwarding copies of the press releases for the award ceremony of September 26, 2002, and a copy to Torn for use with the local media. Should you like to learn more about our company and the watershed recognition program, please visit our web site at www.cfindustries.com. Again, congratulations to Tom and students of Casa Gande High School. Sincerely, Sugar March Tamien Hook Media Specialist TH:co ,/cc: Tom Furrer CHENT OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, California 90802-4213 United Anglers of Casa Grande High School Habitat Restoration Partner 1999 - 2003 Citation The National Marine Fisheries Service proudly adopts United Anglers of Casa Grande High School as the first student program to be adopted into its new anadromous fish habitat restoration initiative. This is the NMFS High School Habitat Restoration Partnership program. The criteria for adoption were not created by fishery bureaucrats, but by the accomplishments of Casa Grande High School students in Adobe Creek. These criteria, that other student programs must meet as well, include the following: A dedicated faculty advisor in fishery habitat conservation; a strong partnership with its community; an anadromous stream conservation or restoration project; a watershed or ecosystem approach to stream conservation; an outreach plan to educate other students and the public about fish habitats; and a strong student commitment to habitat protection. The NMFS will adopt that school as a partner in salmon and steelhead habitat restoration, committed to providing modest financial support for field supplies and equipment, classroom materials, and other educational and outreach materials. It further commits to being the new partner's mentor, providing advice, internships, field trips, classroom instruction, career counseling, and other appropriate educational support. United Anglers of Casa Grande High School is a prototype NMFS partnership for other high schools in California. Should this four-year program be highly successful, it may be expanded beyond salmon and steelhead watersheds to marine pelagic and groundfish habitats. Congratulations to all members of the United Anglers of Casa Grande High School and I look forward to this new partnership with you. November 7, 1998 William J. SogarthWilliam T. Hogarth, Ph.D. Regional Administrator Printed on Recurled Paner UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, California 90802-4213 HABITAT RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP UNITED ANGLERS OF CASA GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL November 7, 1998 Effective this date the National Marine Fisheries Service adopts into its Habitat Restoration Partnership the students of United Anglers of Casa Grande High School, Petaluma, California. This adoption commits United Anglers to meet criteria established for this adoption and commits the National Marine Fisheries Service to providing the mentor support identified herein. United Anglers Agrees To: Dedicate at least one faculty science advisor to this partnership; support students interested in college preparatory classes with emphasis in fishery or habitat conservation careers; adopt a nearby creek as a salmon or steelhead trout habitat restoration project; take a watershed approach in restoring that creek; engage the local community in their restoration work; develop an outreach project or program to educate the community and other schools in salmon and steelhead habitat conservation and restoration; and fulfill this commitment for four years. National Marine Fisheries Service Agrees To: Dedicate one career employee as a partnership mentor; provide modest funding to assist in acquiring classroom and field equipment; participate in science and career fairs; seek opportunities to engage students in actual problems in the field; provide classroom instruction; provide student career counseling; provide student intern tasks; and fulfill this commitment for four years. United Anglers of Casa Grande High School National Marine Fisheries Service Petaluma, California Long Beach, California

Permit and Resource Management Department

4 pages 4 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: There is a substantial backlog of unresolved code enforcement cases. With a continually increasing number of alleged violations, PRMD is unable to keep the backlog from growing, or reduce the number of active cases. During 2001 enforcement staff resolved 2241 cases, but an unprecedented 2237 new complaints were received. As of March, 2002, there were just under 4900 unresolved cases. The backlog has been growing again, and is expected to reach 5000 by July 1, 2002.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should significantly increase penalties for code violations to discourage bypassing the permit process.

F2: Code enforcement cases are sorted into 32 categories. Almost half of the cases are classified as “construction without a permit.” The second largest category is “grading without a permit,” a category that has grown in recent years because of new regulations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should, despite budget constraints, approve additional positions in code enforcement to reduce the number of active cases. The cost of the increased support for code enforcement could be partially covered by a higher penalty fee structure.

F3: There are many reasons for the large backlog, including an increased number of construction projects, and, with an increasing population density, more potential conflicts among 37 neighbors. In addition to such unavoidable reasons for an increase in code enforcement problems, the Grand Jury has identified four that seem to be addressable. Specifically: a. There is increased reluctance by property owners to apply for permits and conform to existing regulations. They often believe that it is less expensive and time consuming to proceed without permits, and to take a chance on being caught and paying a small fine, rather than to follow the legal procedure. Current penalties and fines are too low to encourage compliance. These penalties are set by the Board of Supervisors. b. Avoidance of the proper permit procedure is often encouraged by some contractors and builders who, eager to get the job, mislead their customers by assuring them that a permit is not required. Although the state is the only agency that can revoke or suspend a contractor’s license it does not have staff to investigate violations. c. PRMD has identified a need for two more code enforcement inspectors and a dedicated member of County Counsel staff in order to reduce the number of active cases. d. Anonymous complaints are accepted and acted upon. Complainants are often reluctant to be identified; because of this, PRMD is unable to follow up and get more information from the complainant making resolution of the case more difficult. RESPONSE TO ZUCKER REPORT AND GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: County Counsel should provide dedicated staff to expedite litigation of code enforcement cases.

F4: PRMD is currently working to implement the recommendations of the Zucker Report and previous Grand Juries. Several of the more important recommendations have been completed. Conclusions The code enforcement process needs greater attention. The backlog of active cases is far too great but, more importantly, the process is not effective in achieving code conformance. The permit process is too easily bypassed with little or no penalty to the property owner or the builder. Steps need to be taken to encourage compliance. The county is making meaningful progress in implementing the recommendations of the Zucker Report and previous Grand Juries. 38

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: To discourage builders from regularly bypassing the permit process in the absence of strict enforcement at the state level, the Board of Supervisors should consider some innovative approaches such as: a. Require PRMD to track and keep records of builders who fail to comply with the permit process and publicize a list of repeat violators. b. Prohibit repeat violators from consideration for public work projects. c. Publicize the outcome of cases decided in litigation so that the public is aware of the consequences of violations.

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: The Board of Supervisors should endorse PRMD’s proposal to stop accepting anonymous complaints except for emergency situations involving health and safety. Provision should be made to protect the complainant’s identity from disclosure to the public or to the accused violator if requested.

R6: PRMD must continue to make progress in implementing the recommendations of the Zucker Report. The Board of Supervisors should closely monitor this progress to assure that future milestones are achieved. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Board of Supervisors: R1 through R6 Director of PRMD: R1, R2 and R4 through R6 County Counsel: R3 39

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.