Sonoma County Grand Jury
2015-2016
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Programs and opportunities available to men are not available to women who would be eligible for transfer to NCDF.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff's Department develop and prioritize a plan to accommodate female residents at the NCDF.
F2:
Programs and opportunities available to boys at the Juvenile Probation Camp are not available to girls who would otherwise be eligible for transfer to a similar probation camp.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Probation Department develop and prioritize a plan to provide vocational opportunities and family-oriented rehabilitation programs for girls at the JJC. <b>REQUIRED RESPONSES</b> Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Law Library can no longer rely on court filing fees to meet expenses and must seek additional funding to sustain services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors provide an emergency, one-time payment of $40,000 for operational expenses.
F2:
There is little coordination with other agencies that provide services similar to those offered by the Law Library.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors create a community Task Force to examine the long term needs of the Law Library and work toward the elimination of duplication of services among other community agencies.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Library's pension fund appears to be stabilized and the Library is making current payments. However the unfunded liability is still excessive in relation to the Library's total revenue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Library management draft a business plan that projects future revenues and expenses and provides for liability reduction.
F2:
The Library's OPEB (health and absences) obligation is seriously underfunded. The Library fails to completely fund its costs for current benefits as well as costs for its future unfunded liabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Library Commission review the current financial status at least quarterly to verify that the unfunded liability is decreasing, and annually report to the public on the progress being made towards solvency.
F3:
The $1.1 million fund for future OPEB costs, invested with CalPERS, does not appear in the Library's financial reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Library fund its current OPEB costs and not allow its unfunded liability to increase. Monies set aside for these benefits should be placed in a non-revocable trust fund similar to the one created for pension benefits.
F4:
New management is aware of the Library's financial difficulties and is developing new programs for revenue building. However, revenue for these programs will compete with Library operating needs as well as paying down unfunded liabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Library allocate any new revenue to ensure that all the Library's current expenses are paid as they are incurred and that its pension and OPEB liabilities are not allowed to grow.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
A complete list of all dependent and independent special districts in Sonoma County is not available, depriving residents of information that would allow them to become involved in this component of local government.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sonoma County Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector, LAFCO and the Sonoma County's Clerk-Recorder-Assessor cooperate to create and publish a listing of Sonoma County special districts on the County website. The list should include existing websites, names and terms of office of board members and special district contact information.
F2:
Many special districts lack consistent County oversight and supervision to assure compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Public Records Act and the Political Reform Act laws.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Auditor track, monitor and review the audit reports of independent special districts. Non-submissions, late reports and audit report findings should be highlighted in a report to the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
Special districts with limited budgets find full-scale financial audits costly.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County Auditor provide information to all special districts regarding the options and procedures for obtaining approval for either a multiyear audit or a financial review in lieu of an actual audit.
F4:
The Sonoma County Clerk's Office does not maintain a formal Roster of Public Agencies, listing special districts within the County, as required by Government Code Section 53051.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County Auditor comply with Government Code Section 26909 requiring that her office audit, or contract for outside audits, of any special district failing to submit the same.
F5:
The lack of readily available financial information and records prevents citizens from exercising their right of oversight of their local special districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Local Agency Formation Commission complete Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Reviews for special districts every five years as required by State law. <b>REQUIRED RESPONSES</b> Special Districts-FINAL-052616.docx 5 Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
F6:
The Local Agency Formation Commission does not complete Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Reviews for special districts every five years as required by Government Code Section 56430.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
For the past three years, the Board of Supervisors has demonstrated a commitment to improving the condition of County roads by increasing levels of spending from the General Fund.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator's Office to present the budget in a form which makes it easy to understand what funding is truly discretionary and what reserves currently exist.
F2:
It is difficult for interested citizens to determine what monies in the County budget are available for spending. The Grand Jury was unable to ascertain what, if any, discretionary funds could be allocated for roads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors set budget priorities such that annual General Fund allocations to the Roads Division meet or exceed $20 million, the minimum amount necessary to stop the decline in the condition of County roads.
F3:
In order to prevent further road deterioration and increasing deferred maintenance costs, a minimum annual amount of $20 million from the General Fund must be dedicated to road paving.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should explore all reasonable avenues to increase funding for paving County roads, including a Special Tax measure.
F4:
It is unrealistic to expect that without additional sources of revenue, the County can meet the $47.7 million per annum threshold necessary to bring all roads up to a Good to Very Good level within 20 years.
F5:
Roads that are essential to commerce and industry and which are travelled by the largest number of users should receive funding priority.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The downturn in new home construction following the recession, combined with low vacancy rates, high rents, wage stagnation and the desirability of Sonoma County as a place to live or vacation, has resulted in systemic undersupply of housing of all types.
F2:
The end of redevelopment agencies reduced funding for affordable housing by $10 million annually between the County and City of Santa Rosa.
F3:
Increasing the supply of affordable housing is dependent upon budgeting priorities because a $48-$60,000 local subsidy is required for every unit of Very Low and Extremely Low Income Housing.
F4:
The County would need to invest $40 million annually to ensure adequate development of affordable housing for Very Low and Extremely Low Income Housing.
F5:
Density bonus allowances make it possible for private sector developers to build Low and Moderate Income housing without public subsidies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the Santa Rosa Housing Authority take necessary steps to pre-approve building sites with maximum density allowance to take advantage of transit-oriented development grants available from Cap and Trade funds (F 4,5,8).
F6:
Private sector developers, including individual homeowners with granny unit potential, are often stymied in their efforts to pursue development opportunities due to high unit-based permitting costs, long bureaucratic delays, neighborhood opposition and CEQA compliance.
F7:
Area Specific Plans can accelerate the development approval process and would facilitate private development.
F8:
New or untapped sources of public and private monies are accessible to jurisdictions within the County.
F9:
The impact that vacation rentals have on the overall supply of housing in the County is difficult to quantify.
* 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.