Sonoma County Grand Jury
2016-2017
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
As recommended by the 2014-15 Civil Grand Jury, the eligible agencies have assigned a high priority to implementing The Sustainable Ground Management Water Act and forming Groundwater Agencies.
F2:
The JPAs are still being finalized and all eligible agencies must work diligently to approve them before the June 30, 2017 deadline.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Continue to work cooperatively in order to finalize and approve the JPA’s by the State mandated June 30, 2017 deadline. [F1, F2]
F3:
Wells that pump less than approximately 1,785 gallons per day will be exempt from metering.
F4:
A rate study will be conducted in each basin to ensure that any use fee is appropriate for the cost of service delivered or the benefit received.
F5:
The BOS, because they control the SCWA, will have two votes on the board of each groundwater agency.
F6:
The Petaluma Basin Groundwater agency only has five members. Both the City of Petaluma and the County need to vote in the affirmative for any super majority (2/3) vote to pass.
F7:
Each of the three GSA’s in Sonoma County will require similar technical and managerial expertise to prepare their respective Groundwater Sustainability Plans.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Specifically instruct, through their JPA agreements that the three Groundwater Agencies pool technical resources and staff in order to avoid costly duplication. [F7]
F8:
Many operational issues will be defined after the June 30, 2017 deadline. Residents of Sonoma County will be able to comment on proposed funding mechanisms before they are finalized. Each Basin’s JPA will be revisited after a rate study is completed and every 10 years after.
F9:
In order for Groundwater Agency boards to function properly, they will need to focus on representing all users.
F10:
Influence by groundwater users, both large and small, may impede the goal of developing an accountability system on an aquifer’s many users, therefore groundwater agencies will need to have substantial independence and maintain transparency when implementing their authority.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
EHS is understaffed, especially in middle management positions, which reduces the ability to effectively train less experienced staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Director of EHS, Division Director, Department Director, and Human Resources Analyst should develop a plan to fill currently vacant positions no later than December 31, 2017 and provide that plan to the 2017/2018 Civil Grand Jury.
F2:
The practice of “under-filling” leaves EHS dependent on trainees, which leads to a less effective organization.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Director of EHS, Division Director, Department Director, and Human Resources Analyst should develop a plan to fill currently vacant positions no later than December 31, 2017 and provide that plan to the 2017/2018 Civil Grand Jury.
F3:
The vacant supervising position of “Community Engagement and Training” underscores two of the greatest needs of the section: outreach to the community and robust ongoing training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Director of EHS, Division Director, Department Director, and Human Resources Analyst should develop a plan to fill currently vacant positions no later than December 31, 2017 and provide that plan to the 2017/2018 Civil Grand Jury.
F4:
EHS is limited to recruiting qualified personnel from outside the County or training individuals who do not currently possess REHS certification on the job, because curriculum supporting REHS certification does not exist in northern California.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Director of the Public Health Division should meet with SSU’s Chair of the Environmental Studies Department to recommend a curriculum that would lead directly to REHS certification no later than December 31, 2017 and provide a summary of the outcome of those meetings to the 2017/2018 Civil Grand Jury.
F5:
Sonoma State University has an existing Environmental Studies Department that could provide courses necessary to obtaining REHS certification.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Evidence- Based- Practices (EBP) were developed over the past twenty years, using scientific methods. Sonoma County has implemented EBP into the programs used by the criminal justice system over the past ten years.
F2:
The Probation Department is struggling to conduct internal analysis and generate reports on data collected by service providers on an on-going basis because of the lack of a dedicated data analyst.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Probation Department provide the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury a copy of the report and analysis on recidivism as soon as it is completed. (F2)
F3:
Sonoma County is conducting an analysis of the collected data on recidivism reduction through a contracted provider of research and evaluation services. A report of the analysis is due in the summer of 2017. (The results will not be available in time to be included in this Civil Grand Jury report).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors continue to provide adequate funding in support of the Probation Department’s goals, and should fund a Data Analyst position if requested by the Probation Department. (F3)
F4:
Our investigation shows that changing the attitude of the juvenile offender and providing support to families are the best approaches to reducing recidivism.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Miscommunication related to retirement benefits in the Public Health Division contributed to the resignation of experienced Public Health Nurses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
To avoid a rise in financial and social costs associated with ACEs, the Director of Department of Health Services should develop a plan for maintaining or increasing adequate staffing levels of MCAH Public Health Nurses. It is recommended that the improvements be implemented no later than October 31, 2017; and it is requested that information on the plan be submitted to the Sonoma County Grand Jury by that date.
F2:
Poor communication between the upper management of Department of Health Services and the staff in the trenches has resulted in poor morale.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Because the prevention of ACEs deserves to be the among the highest budget priorities of the Public Health Division in Sonoma County, the Board of Supervisors should provide increased funding to MCAH.
F3:
The policy of reducing PHN outreach to at-risk populations creates the appearance of efficiency by failing to count these clients, and thus creates a false impression of achievement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Directors of Department of Health Services and Public Health Division develop a plan to improve communication between all positions within Department of Health Services.
F4:
MCAH’s ability to prevent Adverse Childhood Experiences has been seriously undermined by the reduction in Field Nursing staff from eleven to six.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
There are no mechanisms in place to coordinate between Sonoma County jurisdictions on sales tax measures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors develop a formal process to work with cities, independent special districts and JPA’s to coordinate future sales tax measures to ensure sales tax revenues are maximized across all jurisdictions. (F1)
F2:
The County’s current revenue raising is limited to 1.125% in the unincorporated County which is equal to about $24 million per year, but that capability may be limited if the burden for countywide services is perceived as being unfairly placed on rural residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors immediately, but not later than August 31, 2017, submit a request to it’s State Assemblyman or State Senator to draft legislation necessary to obtain an exemption to the 2% ceiling in County sales tax authority (F2, F3, F4, F5).
F3:
Cotati’s sales tax rate now stands at 9.125%, restricting the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors’ ability to increase revenues on a countywide sales tax measure to 0.125% or about $10 million per year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors immediately, but not later than August 31, 2017, submit a request to it’s State Assemblyman or State Senator to draft legislation necessary to obtain an exemption to the 2% ceiling in County sales tax authority (F2, F3, F4, F5).
F4:
Given the size of the County’s unmet funding needs ($150m) compared to the discretionary funding available to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (@$10m) it is quite possible that further sales tax measures will be put before voters, but the amount of such sales tax is limited by the current sales tax cap.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors immediately, but not later than August 31, 2017, submit a request to it’s State Assemblyman or State Senator to draft legislation necessary to obtain an exemption to the 2% ceiling in County sales tax authority (F2, F3, F4, F5).
F5:
There is precedent for the Board of Supervisors to request an increase in the Sales Tax Cap because five California counties have already sought and obtained legislative relief from the sales tax cap.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors immediately, but not later than August 31, 2017, submit a request to it’s State Assemblyman or State Senator to draft legislation necessary to obtain an exemption to the 2% ceiling in County sales tax authority (F2, F3, F4, F5).
F6:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors did not adhere to the priorities described in its 2016 Work Priorities Document when they voted to propose a Sales tax for Parks on the residents of the unincorporated county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors immediately, but not later than August 31, 2017, draft and adopt a policy that any sales tax increase measure they propose to voters be accompanied by a resolution clearly stating either: • How the resulting funding increase matches the funding priorities previously established by the Board of Supervisors, or • If the sales tax addresses a new budget item, a comprehensive statement explaining why priorities are being revised (F6, F7).
F7:
The Parks sales tax measure was defeated in part because voters rejected the notion that unincorporated residents should pay the cost of services enjoyed by all citizens of the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors immediately, but not later than August 31, 2017, draft and adopt a policy that any sales tax increase measure they propose to voters be accompanied by a resolution clearly stating either: • How the resulting funding increase matches the funding priorities previously established by the Board of Supervisors, or • If the sales tax addresses a new budget item, a comprehensive statement explaining why priorities are being revised (F6, F7).
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
While the County attempted to negotiate the best Master Operating Agreement possible, it appears they did not have the industry-specific expertise that Republic Services demonstrated. The County consigned to Republic the heavy equipment and methane gas plant before the full extent of the potential value was determined. The County did not identify, and therefore lost, the financial benefits of below market electricity for the Sonoma County Water Agency, increased methane yields, improved compaction rates and the increased longevity of the landfill itself.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
When entering into long-term agreements, the Board of Supervisors require independent audits be done every three to five years to insure the terms remain fair to all parties to the agreement. [F1,F3]
R2:
The County review and reinforce its internal policies for reviewing contracts, operations, and interagency cooperation.[F1, F2, F3, F4, F5]
F2:
The County’s failure to adhere to industry best practices in the operation of the landfill led to a 5 year closure that Republic resolved in a matter of months
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County review and reinforce its internal policies for reviewing contracts, operations, and interagency cooperation.[F1, F2, F3, F4, F5]
F3:
The Board of Supervisors issued The Ratto Group an unusual, no bid, 20-year franchise of the waste hauling and transfer station contract.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
When entering into long-term agreements, the Board of Supervisors require independent audits be done every three to five years to insure the terms remain fair to all parties to the agreement. [F1,F3]
R2:
The County review and reinforce its internal policies for reviewing contracts, operations, and interagency cooperation.[F1, F2, F3, F4, F5]
F4:
The BOS effort to preserve the MOA placed it in conflict with SCWMA and its mandate to promote and manage composting as called for by AB939
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County review and reinforce its internal policies for reviewing contracts, operations, and interagency cooperation.[F1, F2, F3, F4, F5]
R3:
The BOS and SCWMA make it a high priority to bring composting back to Sonoma County. [F4, F5]
F5:
Ratepayers will continue to bear the $2.5 million annual cost of out-hauling green waste. Until the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency permits and supports a new compost operator, citizens will bear the impact of the pollution and wear and tear associated with over 4,000 diesel truck trips annually.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County review and reinforce its internal policies for reviewing contracts, operations, and interagency cooperation.[F1, F2, F3, F4, F5]
R3:
The BOS and SCWMA make it a high priority to bring composting back to Sonoma County. [F4, F5]
F6:
The County and partnered cities successfully transferred their significant post-closure liability exposure to Republic Services.
F7:
Republic Services has operated the central landfill in an efficient manner. With the addition of the Materials Recovery Facility, they will increase diversion of waste material and extend the life of the landfill.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Homelessness is a county-wide issue.
F2:
The City of Santa Rosa is actively involved in and committed to responding to the problems of homelessness.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By September 30, 2017, the City of Santa Rosa shall commit to continue to renew the Declaration of Homeless Emergency every 30 days, at least through Winter 2017-18. (F2)
R2:
The City of Santa Rosa should formally engage the County to implement the multifaceted Tool Box approach. (F1 & F4)
F3:
The Declaration of Homelessness Emergency has not resulted in any significant increase in sheltering options for the homeless.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors should commit to making the Chanate site available for homeless services until its sale is completed and should solicit proposals from local homeless service entities for managing the facilities. (F3 & F4))
F4:
The City of Santa Rosa believes that it can achieve better collaboration and cooperation with the County on homeless issues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors should commit to making at least a portion of the parking area at the Veterans Building available for CHAP. (F3 & F4)
F5:
The Methodist Church proposal to offer up to twenty tent sites was whittled back to four, in large part because of neighborhood objections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By September 30, 2017, the City of Santa Rosa should develop an action plan to work more preemptively with local residents to welcome homeless services. (F5)
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Petaluma City Schools has developed a comprehensive and successful truancy prevention program in their elementary schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Santa Rosa City Schools’ truancy program be modeled after the Petaluma City Schools’ program to reflect an emphasis on truancy prevention. (F1 & F2)
F2:
Santa Rosa elementary schools have lost a substantial amount of ADA funding ($459,478 in 2014-15 alone) because of high truancy rates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A Santa Rosa City Schools’ action plan for the implementation of these best practices used by Petaluma City Schools be completed by the beginning of the 2017-18 school year. (F1 & F2)
F3:
The number of students living in poverty in Santa Rosa elementary schools is almost twice that of students in Petaluma elementary schools.
F4:
The Civil Grand Jury was unable to determine the cause for the sudden increase in truancy (from 5.48% to 32.1%) that began in the 2011-12 school year in Santa Rosa elementary schools.
F5:
Santa Rosa City Schools staff may not have been sufficiently trained in effective truancy prevention and reduction, possibly because of a high rate of staff turnover.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Santa Rosa City Schools require that all staff who interact with students attend the truancy training programs offered by Sonoma County Office of Education (SCOE). Implementation of this recommendation should begin no later than the first semester of the 2017-18 school year.(F5)
F6:
A case management approach to truancy used in the Keep Kids in School (KKIS) contract program has been successful for both Petaluma City Schools and Santa Rosa City Schools. The current grant expires in 2018.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Petaluma and Santa Rosa City School Districts seek additional grants to continue the Keep Kids in School (or its equivalent) case management program in Sonoma County Schools. (F6)
F7:
A 1% reduction in the rate of truancy would result in additional ADA funding that could more than pay for one or more case managers for a school district.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Santa Rosa City Schools develop a budget and plan by the end of January 2018 to hire an adequate number of case managers to work with truants and their families. (F7)