Sonoma County Grand Jury
2024-2025
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (10)
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By November 1, 2025, the Board of Supervisors will direct DHS to establish an Animal Services Task Force comprising county, city, and shelter representatives to revisit the 2012 DHS Animal Services Report and recommend a governance structure for animal services that will: 1) provide county-wide oversight to ensure compliance with State Law; 2) standardize fees and engage a common licensing vendor to enhance public health and safety, licensing rates and revenue, and; 3) achieve economic efficiencies through shared resources. (F1, F3, F4-
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Charles M. Schultz - Sonoma County Airport’s failure to update and execute its Master Plan in compliance with FAA recommendations is a root cause of airport maintenance and development problems.
F2:
STS’s current management resources are more appropriate for a general aviation or small commercial airport than for the medium sized passenger airport that Sonoma County Airport has become.
F3:
Sonoma County Airport’s management is reactive rather than proactive due to inadequate resources and staffing.
F4:
Sonoma County Airport projects compete with road repair, traffic management, purchasing and other projects for senior Public Infrastructure Department leadership attention.
F5:
Parking is the largest airport revenue source, but the absence of adequate parking on site is a material barrier to continued growth. June 2025 11 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Sonoma County Airport
F6:
Sonoma County use of airport land for non-airport purposes without paying rent could expose the County to significant FAA penalties.
F7:
Other than compliance with California Assembly Bill 2234 (2022), Permit Sonoma senior management has not established objective expectations for staff performance regarding plan review or timely permit issuance.
F8:
Permit Sonoma does not provide information to the public about over the counter and express permit review requirements and opportunities in a manner that is easily accessible and comprehensive.
F9:
Permit Sonoma permit intake and plan check staff need additional workflow systems training to ensure accurate data entry and consistent use of status reporting conventions.
Additional Recommendations
13
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By December 1, 2025, the Sonoma County Executive Officer will evaluate whether Sonoma County Airport should continue to be a department within Public Infrastructure or become a
R2:
stand-alone agency and will forward an appropriate recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. By December 1, 2025, the County Executive Officer will evaluate the need for engaging a qualified Airport Master Plan consultant as suggested in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5070-
R3:
6B to facilitate a comprehensive review of the Charles M. Schultz-Sonoma County Airport Master Plan. By June 1, 2026, Sonoma County Airport shall complete and publish a full update of the Airport Master Plan using the most current version of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5070-6B to
R4:
guide requirements for completing the updated plan.
R5:
inspection self-certification, and use of program management techniques to fulfill all Berry Dunn Report recommendations. By December 19, 2025, Permit Sonoma shall review and publish an accurate update to its January 2025 Board of Supervisors report on progress toward fulfillment of the Berry Dunn
R6:
report recommendations. By March 27, 2026, Permit Sonoma shall determine whether additional resources are required to fully implement the workflow system upgrades needed to fulfill all Berry Dunn Report
R7:
recommendations and communicate such incremental budget requirements to the County Executive Officer and the Board of Supervisors. By March 27, 2026, Permit Sonoma will review, publish (and require consistent staff usage of) requirements checklists for issuance of all permit types.
R8:
By March 27, 2026, Permit Sonoma shall review and update its workflow system training materials and protocols for all Permit Intake, Plan Check, and Planning personnel.
R9:
By March 27, 2026, Permit Sonoma shall establish and publish, in a consistent format, standard operating procedures for all Planning, Building, Engineering, Well & Septic, and
R10:
Code Enforcement permit issuance/compliance review processes. June 2025 31 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Permit Sonoma 2025 By May 1st, 2026, the County Executive shall review Permit Sonoma’s resource requirement noted in Recommendation 7 for inclusion in the Board of Supervisors’ 2026-27 budget review.
R11:
By July 10, 2026, and annually thereafter, Permit Sonoma shall publicly post an accurate annual report of each department’s permit processing performance and compliance with
R12:
timeliness requirements of 2022 California Assembly Bill 2234. By July 13, 2026, or as soon thereafter as allowed by budget authority, Permit Sonoma shall implement workflow system upgrades sufficient to ensure that individual and collective
R13:
throughput performance is captured and reported in a reliable and consistent manner.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F2:
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
STS's current management resources are more appropriate for a general aviation or small commercial airportthan for the medium sized passenger airport that Sonoma County Airport has become.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
ByDecemberl,2025,theSonomaCountyExecutiveOfficerwillevaluatewhetherSonoma County Airport should continue to be a deparhnent within Public Infrastructure or become a stand- alone agency and will forward an appropriate recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Sonoma County Airport's management is reactive rather than proactive due to inadequate resources and staffing. May 2025 Sonoma County CivilGrand Jury Sonoma County Airpolt
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December I,2025, the County Executive Officer will evaluate the need for engaging a qualified Airport Master Plan consultant as suggested in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) I 50/5070- 68 to facilitate a comprehensive review of the Charles M. Schultz-Sonoma County Airport Master Plan.
F4:
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Sonoma County Airport projecs compete with road repair, traffic management, purchasing and other projecs for senior Public Infrastructure Department leadership attention.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By June 1,2026, SonomaCounty Airport shall complete and publish a full update of the Airport Master Plan using the most current version of FAA Adv isory Circular (AC) I 5 0/5070-68 to guide requirements for completing the updated plan. Required Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code $$ 933 and 933.05, the civil grandjury requires responses as follows: o Sonoma County Infrastructure Departrnent to respond to Fl, Fl, F3, F4, F5; Rl , R4 o Sonoma County Executive Officer to respond to R2 and R3 The governing bodies indicated above should be aware thal their comments and responses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. Responses must be submitted to the presidingjudge ofthe Sonoma County Supeior Court in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05. Responses must include the information required by section 933.05. BIBLIOGRAPHY and References: o US Departrnent of Transportation - FAA, "Airport Master Report", December 9,2024. . hess Democrat, "Sonoma Jet Center sues Sonoma CourtyAirport, raising concems over fuel tank project as feud breaks out between tenants." Jurc 22,2024. o October 17, 2024, Sonoma County Airport Commission meeting notes o County of Sonoma, "Charles M. Schulz - Sonoma County Airport report to Board of Supervisors shows continued growth in passengers, revenue." October 16,2024. o Sonoma County Airport, "Master Plan" 2007 o FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Section 163 Grant Assurance #25 May 2025 of9 Sonoma County Civil Gmnd Jury Sonoma County Airpofi Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not ident{y individruls interviewed. Penol Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name ofany person orfacts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. Mav 2025
F5:
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Parking is the largest airport revenue source, but the absence of adequate parking on site is a material barrier to continued growt}t.
F6:
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Sonoma County use ofairport Iand for non-airport purposes withow paying rent could expose the County to significant FAA penalties.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F2:
The County EOP is intended to be executed in an ad hoc manner without advance identification of specific evacuation routes or predesignated shelters.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors shall direct the Deparunent of Emergency Management to report on the resources required to accelerate Emergency Operations Plan Annex Goals SE2 and SE5 from 2030 to 2027 by February 2,2026, and shall evaluate this resource requirement for inclusion in the 2027 County budget.
F3:
Most of Sonoma County's majorevacuation routes are incapable of accommodating predictable evacuation traffic in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By July 1,2026 the Board ofSupervisors shall fund Departrnent ofEmergency Management acquisition of evacuation management modeling and simulation software which will facilitate advance identification ofzone-specific evacuation routes and evacuation messaging.
F4:
Most roads critical to emergency evacuation in the unincorporated areas ofSonoma County have no remotely managed capability for controlling taffic flow, and existing taffic controls will not be operational during power failures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors shall direct the Departrnent of Emergency Management to report on the resources requiredto identif and inchde within Courty Evacuation Mapsthe location of all predesignated county-operated evacuation shelrcrs by March 2,2026.
F5:
The Sonoma County Sheriffs Ofhce is primarily responsible for ensuring public safety during evacuations, but SCSO staffmg may require temporary assignment of non-SCSO County employees for concurrent execution ofhousehold evacuation notices and evacuationroute tramc management.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By July I , 2026 the Board ofSupervisors and the Sonoma County Sheriff shall review Sonoma County evacuation plans to determine whethertrained and certified Sonoma County employees (using the authority granted by California Govemment Code Gov. Code 0 {3 I 00-3 102) should become a resource for emergency traffic control operations. Ma12025 Page l9 of20 Sonoma Cotmty Civil Grard Jury Emergency EYacuation Plans REQUIRED RESPONSES: Pursuant to Penal Code $$ 933 and 933.05, the civil grand jury requires responses as follows: o Sonoma County Board ofSupervisors Fl-F6, Rl- R5 r Sonoma County Departnent ofEmergency Management F1-4, F6; R2, R3, R4 o Sonoma County Public Infrastructure Departrnent to respond to Fl, F3, F4, F6; Rl . Sonoma Counry Sheriff to respond to Fl-F6, R5 The governing bodies indicoted above should be aware that their comments and responses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. Responses must be submitted to the presiding judge of the Sonoma County Superior Court in accordane with the provisions of the Calfornia Penal Code sectiors 9 3 3 and 9 3 3.05. Responses must include the informotion required by California Penal Code section 933.05. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interyiewed. Calfornia Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Civil Grand Jury not contoin the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides ihformation to the Civil Grand Jury. May 2025 ot20
F6:
Organized community-based communications networks are a proven emergency resource yet remain only partly integrated into county and city emergency operations and communications infrastructures and require additional invesfnent to provide county-wide coverage.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By December 5,2026 the Board of Supervisors shall direct Sonoma Public Infrastructure to estimate and report the necessary cost and location ofradio repeaters needed to fully implement GMRS repeaters serving the entire County.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F0:
https://$.rrrf,.trorthb ay biz.cann\OS/O2l2gtpreserving-rohaert-parks-potentia, rr htgs://rpcity.granicus.com./Meraviewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id:358&E€ta id:333 l8 Who Can Live h Soncrna Cr;nty? of l7 established in 2001 , aimed to align new housing development with infrastructure and public service capacities, stipulating a lo% annual population growth cap (approximately 225 new housing units per annum). Notably, this ordinance exempts specihc housing categories, including affordable units for low- and very low-income households, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), model homes, mobile home park conversions, residential infill projects, and conversions of non-residential properties to residential use. Such legislative provisions indicate a pro-housing orientation within the electorate. 1.2 Land Acquisition Mechanisms Municipalities employ diverse strategies for acquiring land suitable for affordable housing. These include the disposition of surplus lands, partnerships with community land tmsts, and the formation of public-private partnerships. Along with direct land acquisition, cities develop incentive programs designed to encourage developers to integrate affordable units into larger, mixed-use projects. Within Sonoma County, prevalent strategies include the use of surplus land, land banking and navigating the land entitlement process. Sarp lus Land atifizatio n Cities may sell or lease publicly owned land for affordable housing development, subject to compliance with Califomia's Surplus Land Act (SLA )-. The SLA was updated in August2024 to further incentivize affordable housing through streamlined disposition processes. Key SLA provisions mandate: o Formal declaration ofland as surplus by local agencies at regular public meetings. o Submission of annual surplus property inventory reports to HCD. e Maintenance by HCD ofa list ofinterested affordable housing developers known as "sponsors". If land is not sold or leased to a sponsor, the public entity mu$ record an Affordable Housing Covenant mandating at least I 5% affordable units in any future project comprising l0 or more units. Healdsburs Example: In 2 003, Healdsburg's former Redevelopment Agency acquired a property at I 5 5 Dry Creek Road for $ I .8 million that was designated for low to moderate-income housing. Following the surplus land process and securing an exemption, the city transferred the property to Burbank Housinq.:, a non-profit housing development corporation, for the nominal sum of $1. An additional $1.7 million in grants has been secured for construction, with Burbank Housing actively pursuing $9.7 million in farmworker housing grants and tax credits. Rohnert Park Example: Over a decadeago, Rohnert Park purchased a 30-acre parcel for $12.5 million for a proposed downtown mixed-use developrnem. The city, in collaboration with HCD, designated this parcel as surplus, formulated a detailed development plan incorporating 150,000 sq. ft. of retail space and 400 residential units (25% designated affordable). It subsequently selected a developer via a competitive bidding process. Itnd Banking Land banking involves the acquisition and holding of land by public or private entities for future developmeng often prioritized for affordable housing or community revitalization. This shtery may encompass undeveloped, vacant, or blighted properties. Healdsburs Example: The city is currently exploring the establishment of a Housing Trust Fund to support land banking for future affordable housing initiatives. This fund may evolve into a Housing l2 htp:/tu'wT v. hcd.ca gov/ptatrdng-ed-community -development/public-lods -affordab le-hous ing-developmeat l3 httss://burbankhou sing org/ Who Can Live h Sorma County? Land Trust, with the primary objective of securing land for long-term affordability, operating independently but in alignment with city housing goals. Rohnert Park Examole: The aforementioned acquisition of the 30-acre downtown parcel for $ 12.5 million, using city funds, also exemplifies land banking for future mixed-use development. 2. The Entitlement Process A sigrrificant portion of Sonoma County's undeveloped land requires regulatory entitlements prior to residential or other forms ofdevelopment. This process entails adherenc€ to zoning regulations, land use policies, environmental review (Califomia Environmental Quality Act), and public inpul culminating in the issuance of necessary permis and approvals. Both Healdsburg and Rohnert Park have implemented mea$rresto streamline their entitlement processes to meet sixth Cycle Housing Element objectives. These include offering early developer feedback and utilizing Development Agreements @As) for large-scale projects. DAs are negotiated contracts specifyingterms for land use, public benefits, project timelines, and vesting rights, providing developers with regulatory certainty. Healdsburg Examole: The city provides no-cost pre-application meetings, offers fast-track processing for ADUs and affordable housing projects, and has established formal written pre-application procedures. Furthermore, Heald$urg prepares Program Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) to reduce environmental review costs andtimelines for projects covered under these programmatic assessments. The city actively applies state housing laws. Rohnert Park Examole: The city offers optional pre-4plication meetings with multidisciplinary staff to provide early project feedback. Upon formal application submission, projects undergo a structured review process, typically involving three-week cycles for staff feedback. Larger multifamily projects generally necessitate Site Plan and Architectural Review, a process taking approximately 90 days from application completeness to approval. While most projects receive administrative approval, Planning Commission review may be required under specific circumstances. 3. Financing Affordable Housing Financing constitutes a critical, albeit complex, component of new housing development. A comprehensive delineation ofthe intricate and innovative financing strategies that influence the scope and viability of affordable housingprojects is beyond the purview ofthis report. This section, therefore, offers only a foundational overview. Affordable housing finance typically necessitates a confluence of public funding, private investment, and strategic partnerships. The Low-[ncome Housins Tax Credit (LIHTC).il program serves as the principal federal instrument supporting affordable rental housing, incentivizing developers through Federal tax credits. Municipalities augrnent these efforts by offering local incentives such as land donations, impact fee waivers. and density bonuses. "lnclusionary housing" has emerged as a significant mechanism for affordable housing production in Sonoma County. As housing valuations increase, cities incentivize developers and landowners by allowing higher-value property development contingent upon the inclusion of affordable units. A typical inclusionary housing program might mandae that 10-3002 of new residential units be sold or rented to ra hnp:/A,rr,r,r,v. congres s.gov/crs-product/RS2 2 3 t9#:-:texr-TheTrolow- incomeTrohousingoz20t,,<o/o20credigo20(LlHTC)%20Itrogatno/A0is,fromo/o2050yo25o/Ahoo/o2025o/45; Who C-an Live h Sarcrna C.ounty? of l7 Iower-income households. Califomia state policy empowers municipalities to implement such local inclusionary policies. Most municipalities require deed restrictions for a minimum of 45 years for for-sale projects and 55 years for rental projects on units approved under inclusionary housing programs that receive ciry financial assistance or state housing density bonuses. These restrictions ensure long-term affordability for targeted income goups and dictate terms conceming sale, rent controls, and property aesthetics. Cities also employ other financing tools, including fee waivers, density bonuses, public-private partnerships, and state funding allocations. 3.1 City-SpecificFinancingExamples Healdsbwg: A Muhi-Tiered Approach Healdsburg has advanced its affordable housing initiatives through a combination of inclusionary housing mandates, state funding, and targeted special taxes. Inclusionary llousing: Healdsburg requies 20%o of residential units to be affordable. Through negotiated Developmort Agreements @A), the city has secured affordable housing units in significant developments such as the Mill Disrict, North Village, Montage, and Hotel Trio. A notable provision in Healdsburg's DAs requires developers to obtain "certificates ofoccupancy" for affordable housing unis prior to constructing market-rate units. Project & Unit Allocation: o Mill Disrict: 42 units (The Randalt), 30 Middle Income Units o Hotel Trio: 37 Unit Citrine Apartnents (Low-to-Moderate Income) o North Village: 53 Very Low-Low Income, 27 Middle Income . Montage: 110 Affordable Units State Funding: In August 2024, Healdsburg secured $21 .l million in state funding via the Affordable Housingand Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program for Phase I of the Saggio Hills development This phase, targeting households eaming between 16-60% of area median income (AMI), will deliver 48 affordable rental units within a larger 1 l8-unit project. The funds will support the constuction of these 48 units, a 3,00o-square-foot commrmity building and essential infrastructure and transportation improvements with broader community benefits. Notably, Saggio Hills achieved the highest score in the Rural Innovation Pro ect Area zuPA rsreflecting strong alignment with state objectives for greenhouse gas emission reduction. The development is projected to reduce 3,880 metric tons of COu equivalent over its lifespan. Funding Allocation: . $15.3 million: Housing development (48 affordable rental units, associated infrastructure). o $5.2 million: Public works and transportation (Healdsburg Shuttle expansion with ZEV multi- use trails, sidewalk enhancements, new bus shelters, CalVans vanpools). o $605,750: Community programs (transit passes, legal aid, workforce developmen! improved intemet access). I5 hnps://sgc.ca.gov/grant-programVahsc/docs/20250325-AHSC R9 _Program_Overview_PDF_ADA.pdf Who Can LiYe h Scncma County? Special Taxes: The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), levied on lodging establishments, was increased by Healdsburg voters via Measure Sll in 2016. This authorized a 2% increase, raisingthe maximum rate from l2o/o to l4%, generating approximately $ 1.5 million annually, with all additional revenue restricted to supporting affordable housing services and programs. Rohnen Park: Diverse Financial Instrumenls Rohnert Park has employed inclusionary housing, state funding, density bonuses, and essential housing bond financing to bolster its affordable housing efforts. Inclusionary llousing: Rohnert Park is undergoing significant residential growth. During the sixth housing cycle, the city anticipates the construction of 2,834 new housing units, of which 587 are projected for very low- and low-income households, and 128 for modaate-income households. Rohnert Park's inclusionary housing policies require that all new developmots of 50 unie or more include I 5olo affordable housingunits. Generally, the city requires market-rate develop€rs to donate land to non-profit housing developers, who then secure financing (e.g., LIHTCs) for affordable unit conskuction. These completed projects are typically owned and managed by the non-profit entities. Development agreements may stipulate various arrangements for land dedication and financing sometimes requiring certificates of occrpancy for affordable units before market-rate construction can proceed. For instance, in the Willow Glen subdivision, the developer partnered with Burbank Housing for the construction of 38 low-income rental units, sharing construction and financing responsibilities, and also built affordable duet units sold via the Sonoma [,and Trust. State Funding: In August 2024, Rohnert Park secured $670,000 through the state's Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP). These funds are designated for predevelopment activities for affordable housing units in downtown Rohnert Park. Density Bonus: Density bonus programs, mandated by Califomia law, incentivize developers to include affordable units by permitting increased project density beyond standard zoning regulations. While Rohnert Park currently has a density bonus program, the city is conducting a feasibility study for a Supplemental Density Bonus Program. This study will examine provisions such as deeper affordability levels, a higher proportion of affordable units, units for indMduals exiting homelessness, and universal design standards. The study is slated for completion by luly 2026, with recommendations to be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council by year-end 2026, potentially leading to municipal code adoption within six months thereafter. Essential Housing Bond Financing: Rohnert Park is a member of the Califomia Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). CSCDA administers the Workforce Housing Program, issuing tax-exempt govemmental purpose bonds to acquire existing market-rate apartrnent buildings and convert them to rent-restricted housing for lower- and moderate- income households. The city has authorizedthe JPA to issue approximately $191,264,100 in bonds. This entails foregoing an estimated $337,346 in annual property tax revenue and committing staff resources (200 hours for program establishment and 200 hours per acquisition project). This initiative is projected to deliver at least222 affordable housing unis (99 veryJow-income, 57 low-income, 66 moderate- income). The city is also committed to a 2027 evaluation of housing production, with provisions for designating additional sites if RHNA obligations are not met. l6 https://ba.[oQedia-org/Healdsburg_C.a.lifomia.-Horel-Tax-AdjusElen! Measure S-(November_2016) Who Can Live h Smoma Co.rnty? of l7 4. Leadership and Community Involvement Leadership Dynamics: For the purposes of this analysis, leadership encompasses the city councils and dedicated housing staff. A salient finding is the recognition by leadership in both municipalities that sustainable community development is untenable if it displaces the working-class populations- including farmworkers, caregivers, teachers, and service workers-who form the socio-economic bedrock of the region. City councils in both Healdsburg and Rohnert Park have demonstrated a consistent alignment on the concept of affordable housing as a core. nonpartisan community priority. thus creating a political foundation conducive to pursuing ambitious initiatives. This commitment is manifested through strategic planning, funding allocations, and policy reforms, supported by knowledgeable and empowered staff. The collaboration between housing staffand city councils is instrumental to the success ofthe affordable housing effort. Their efforts are focused on strategic planning, developing regulatory frameworks, r€source allocation, and community engagement. Healdsb urg : Slr uctured Collab o ralio n Recently, the Healdsburg City Council approved the establishment ofa forrnal Housing Departrnent and authorized a new position dedicated to implementing ie housing saates/. Key collaborative activities include: Strategic Planning: Housing staffand the City Council collaboratively develop affordable housing targets, considering market conditions, infrastructure capacity, community service needs, and resource availability. Policv Develooment and lmplementation: The City Council enacts ordinances such as inclusionary zoning policies, while housing staff ensure effective implementation and monitor ongoing compliance. Resource Allocation: The City Council actively engages in generating fmancial resources and supports viable affordable housing in itiatives. Public-Private PartnershiDs: Housing staffengage with developers and non-profit organizations to leverage resources and expertise, with City Council support in negotiating agreements aligned with affordable housing objectives. Rohnert Park: Integruted Polic!-Making Rohnert Park's collaborative approach involves: o Collaborative Policy-Makins: The City Council and housing staffjointly create and refine policies, such as density bonuses and streamlined approval processes, to facilitate affordable housing development, and continually review policies to reflect evolving needs. Proiect Evaluation and Approval: Housing staffevaluate housing proposals for viability and goal alignment, referring meritorious projects to the City Council for review, amendmenq or approval ensuring conformity with community priorities. lncentive hosrams: Housing staffdesign, implement, and manage incentive programs (e.g., reduced fees, infrastructure support), which, upon Council approval, encourage development. Regular Reporting and Assessment: Housing staffmonitor projects and provide ongoing updates to the City Council on successes and failures, ensuring policies remain current. Who Can Live ir Sonona County? PagelloflT Public Engagement Initiatives: Both entities prioritize public involvement through transparent communication and public hearings, fostering a collaborative environment. This close parurership between municipal staff and elected ofhcials is essential for crafting and implementing effective, integrated, and well-supported affordable housing strategies. 5. Community Involvement and the "Communit5r Will" While legally mandated communiry review is a component of every proposed housing project, the successful realization of affordable housing objectives usually hinges on a proactive "community will." This implies a recognized and enthtsiastically embraced need for housing by community stakeholders, driven by motivations ranging from expanding the tax base to providing housing for essential service workers. The Spanish term "chispa," or "spark," aptly describes a driving force observed in both Healdsburg and Rohnert Park, crucial for fostering a proactivg "yes in my backyard" (YIMBY) stance. Healdsbttrg: Catalyzing Engagement Healdsburg's increasing affluence has exacerbated the problem of housing affordability for long-term residents, families, and service industy workers, a situation compounded by state-mandated housing goals. The "spark" in Healdsburg was significantly fanned by the Housing Element Working Group (HEWG), a diverse nine-person body including representatives from the business community, individuals with lived experience of homelessnes, non-profits, renters, the planning commission, faith- based organizations, and the community at large. The [{EWG, in conjunction with housing staff, developed the roadmap for the 6th cycle Housing Element. Through their analysis and community surveys, the Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) was identified as the primary govemmental constaint on development, while high construction costs (land, materials, labor) were noted as the principal non-govemmental constraints. The following from Healdsburg's "Housing Element" and from the Grand Jury's interviews illustrate the city's outreach, philosophy, and culture: o A community outreach interview captured the sentiment: "Aqui en Healdsburg la renta es muy caro... Tres o m6s personas tienen que vivirjuntos para cubrir la renta." @nglish: "Here in Healdsburg, the rent is very expensive... Three or more people need to live together to cover the rent. ") . A comment by an HEWG member highlighted the city's partnership with Reach for Home, a non-profrt addressing homelessness, emphasizing a personalized approach: "In Healdsburg, they know those experiencing homelessness by name, not numbers..." o Another IIEWG committee member underscored the necessity of aust between the community, local legislature, and developers, alongside a clear, transparent plan for housing development. This holistic, community-centric approach has yielded significant outcomes: o Increasing deed-restricted affordable housing to over l0oZ oftotal housing stock in eight years. o Passage of Measure S, allocating 2oZ ofTOT revenue (approx. $1.5M annually) to affordable housing. . Passage of Measures P and H, allowing middle-income deed-restricted housing outside GMO constraints, allowing middle-income deed-restricted housing outside GMO constraints. o Negotiating workforce housing inclusion in hotel developments. Who C.an Live ir Sqrma County? Page l2 of l7 . Preserving 39 units of older, lower rent housing (often referred to as naturally occurring) affordable housing and establishing I 0 units for Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), a term used to combine long-term affordable housing with supportiye services to help individuals, particularly those experiencing chronic homelessness, achieve housing stability. o Planning 168 affordable units on two city-owned sites. r Developing a Navigation Center providing homes for I I formerly homeless families/individuals. r Securing over $7 million in Proiect Homeker.Ll funding for an interim housing program. o Establishing a formal Housing Departsnent and new staffpositions. Healdsburg's coordinared efforts have exceeded fifth Cycle Housing Element goals and established a foundation for the sixth Cycle, driven by this "spark" of community will. Rohnert Park: hoacttve Odreach and Planning Rohnert Park has emerged as a rcgional leader, surpassing its fifth Cycle Housing Element goal (1,794 units) and positioning itself to exceed the sixth cycle requirement (1,580 units, 2023-2031). This achievement reflects a strong commurity commitnent. Rohnert Park's demographic-younger and less affluent than the county average-faces significant rental cost burdens. In response, City leadership, including a supportive mayor and city council, empowered housing saff to conduct broad public engagement and community-based planning. Key outreach elements included: o A Housin Element.!! webpage attracting over 1,200 email subscribers. o A bilingual housing needs survey (Dec 2021) with 1,344 responses. o Five public workshops engagingover30 stakeholders, includingthe Federated Indians ofGraton Rancheria- . Citywide newsletter distribution and targeted social media campaigns. o Door-to-door outeach in Spanish-speaking communities, distributing over 1,000 door hangers with multilingual QR-coded survey access. . Repeated outreach in 2023 for feedback on the draft Housing Element. o A community-wide survey offering incentives generated over 1 ,500 comments, indicating strong public interest in addressing affordability, homelessness, and infrastructure related to new housing. This consisten! multilingual, and inclusive approach fostered an informed and supportive resident base, reflecting a proactive "community will" instrumental in advancing Rohnert Park's affordable housing objectives. CONCLUSION The experiences of Healdsburg and Rohnert Park demonstrate that addressing affordable housing challenges requies a synergistic combination of adaptive growth management, strategic land acquisition, steamlined entitlement processes, diverse financing mechanisms, and robust leadership, I 7 \\I*wt /.hcd.cagov\gratrts-ed-fu trditrglhomekey rE htF:/ ^,ww.rpcity.org/city_hslydepduaenrs/development_servic.es/housing/housingelement_2123-2O3lx Who Can Live h Sonma County? Page l3 of l7 along with deep community involvenrent. While specific instrumants and approaches may vary based on local contexts, the underlfng commitrnent to proactive planning and collaborative engagement appears to be a crucial determinant of success in expanding affordable housing opportunities. The Grand Jury concluded that the key ingredient of this collaborative engagement is community will, which exists within Healdsburg and Rohnert Park and should be fostered throughout the county. The Grand Jury believes that cities, unincorporatod municipalities and the County can leam from each other by meeting periodically, sharing experiences and identifying best practices. Rohnert Park and Healdsburg housing staff, community members and city leadership generously shared their successes and challenges with the Civil Cnand Jury, and we strongly encourage the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, housing staff, city mayors, city council members, grassroots representatives, and housing advocates throughout Sonoma County to meet with and leam from each other. FIl\DINGS The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that: Fl. Adaptive growth management is crucial but faces limits: Both Healdsburg (Measures P & H) and Rohnert Park (exemptions for affordable housing within its GMO) have actively adapted their growth management ordinances to facilitate affordable housing. However, community concems regarding local character and a perceived lack of safeguards can limit further expansions, as evidenced by the failure of Healdsburg's Measure O.
F2:
Strategic use of public land is a key lever: Both municipalities used land banking (e.g., Healdsburg's 155 Dry Creek Road, Rohnert Park's 30-acre downtown parcel) and then went through the surplus property process to make sites available for affordable housing development.
F3:
A diverse portfolio of financing mechanisms is employed: Cities do not rely on a single funding source. Healdsburg utilizes inclusionary housing, significant state grants (e.9., $21.1 million AHSC for Saggio Hills), and dedicated local revenue from special taxes (Measure S TOQ. Rohnert Park also uses inclusionary housin& state pro-housing incentives, density bonuses, and innovative bond financing through the CSCDA Workforce Housing hogram.
F4:
Streamlined entitlement processes expedite development: Both Healdsburg (no-cost pre- application meetings, fast-tracking) and Rohnert Park (optional pre-application meetings, structured review cycles) have implemented measures to streamline their entitlement processes, offering early feedback and utilizing Development Agreements (DAs) to provide certainty for developers of affordable housing.
F5:
Aligned political leadership and empowered staff are foundational: The success in both cities is partly attibuted to city councils that view affordable housing as a nonpartisan, moral imperative, coupled with knowledgeable and empowered housing staff who can effectively implement strategic plans, policy reforms, and resource allocation. Healdsburg even established a dedicated Housing Departsnent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By January 30,2026, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors @OS) and each of the nine city councils will agree to create an ongoing Affordable Housing Collaboraive, which includes jurisdiction leaders, community members, grass roots organizations and housing advocates, who will share both positive and negative experiences and identify "best practices."
F6:
Proactive and inclusive community engagement cultivates "community will": Both cities demonstrated that extensive, tailored community involvement-such as Healdsburg's diverse HousingElement Working Group (HEWG) and Rohnert Park's broad, multilingual outreach and surveys-is essential for building public understanding and the "community will" (or "chispa") needed to support and overcome opposition to affordable housing projects. Who Can Live h Somra County? of l7
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By January 30,2026, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors @OS) and each of the nine city councils will agree to create an ongoing Affordable Housing Collaboraive, which includes jurisdiction leaders, community members, grass roots organizations and housing advocates, who will share both positive and negative experiences and identify "best practices."
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Sonoma County’s Emergency Operations Plan, Hazard Mitigation Plan, and Department of Emergency Management are an excellent foundation for disaster preparation. June 2025 77 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Evacuation Plans
F2:
The County EOP is intended to be executed in an ad hoc manner without advance identification of specific evacuation routes or predesignated shelters.
F3:
Most of Sonoma County’s major evacuation routes are incapable of accommodating predictable evacuation traffic in a timely manner.
F4:
Most roads critical to emergency evacuation in the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County have no remotely managed capability for controlling traffic flow, and existing traffic controls will not be operational during power failures.
F5:
The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office is primarily responsible for ensuring public safety during evacuations, but SCSO staffing may require temporary assignment of non-SCSO County employees for concurrent execution of household evacuation notices and evacuation route traffic management.
F6:
Organized community-based communications networks are a proven emergency resource yet remain only partly integrated into county and city emergency operations and communications infrastructures and require additional investment to provide county-wide coverage.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
GMRS repeaters serving the entire County. The Board of Supervisors shall direct the Department of Emergency Management to report on the resources required to accelerate Emergency Operations Plan Annex Goals SE2 and SE5 from
R2:
2030 to 2027 by February 2, 2026, and shall evaluate this resource requirement for inclusion in the 2027 County budget. By July 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors shall fund Department of Emergency Management acquisition of evacuation management modeling and simulation software which will facilitate
R3:
advance identification of zone-specific evacuation routes and evacuation messaging. The Board of Supervisors shall direct the Department of Emergency Management to report on the resources required to identify and include within County Evacuation Maps the location of all
R4:
predesignated county-operated evacuation shelters by March 2, 2026. By July 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors and the Sonoma County Sheriff shall review Sonoma County evacuation plans to determine whether trained and certified Sonoma County employees
R5:
(using the authority granted by California Government Code Gov. Code §§3100–3102) should become a resource for emergency traffic control operations.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F2:
Without some mechanism for fee increases to keep pace with inflation, goYemments are unable to recover increased costs and the public is confronted, periodically, with large increases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31,2025,the City Councils of Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa will adopt a policy to avoid abrupt fee increases.
F3:
Because the fee studies examined did not routinely discuss prior subsidies, Santa Rosa City CouncilMembersweredisadvantagedinrecognizingexcessivelylargechanges. 6
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31,2025,the City of Rohnert Park will either direct staff to submit a fee report in the 2025-2026 fiscal year that complies with Rohnert Park Municipal Code Chapter 3,32 or revise that code section to align with state law.
F4:
Stalfs failure to complete an annual fee report was noncompliant with the requirements of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code and resulted in Council Members lacking information needed to evaluate and adjust the fee schedule to cover, without exceeding, actual costs.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F2:
The Real Estate Division is staffed as a service bweau; it does not actively pursue management of the County's real estate assets. Rather, it acts on request by depfitrnents to buy, sell or lease land. If it does not have a request, it does not act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By June l, 2026, the Board of Supervisors will direct County Executive to form a multi disciplinary team with expertise in real estate, affordable housing, and economic development to review underused land assets for potential reuse or sale.
F3:
No comprehensive list exists that classifies the County's properties; the County does not know if it is managing its land assets to their best use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 1,2026, after the County develops a plan to evaluate properties, the Board of Supervisors will designate some periodic land review, such as every three to five years because land use changes and properties once needed may no longer be needed in the future.
F4:
No single division is responsible for the disposal ofthe County's land assets. Appropriate disposal requires expertise in real estate, affordable housing and economic development. Furthermore, no County entity is systemically evaluating land for its potential use for affordable housing or economic development.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December l, 2026, the Board of Supervison will direct County GIS to make the Sonoma County Surplus Property map publicly available. REQUTRED RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code $g 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requires respons€s as follows: o Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (Findings Fl-F4, Rl, R2, R3, R4) The governing bodies indicated aboye should be aware that their comments and responses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. BIBLIOGRAPIIY o Reference for Vehicle Disposals: First Capitol Auction, wr,lr,l.bayareaautoauctions.corn ilistings/First-C apitol-Auction-lnc a Reference for Other Property Disposals: Public Surplus, wr.lr,v.publicsurplus.corE r Updated Surplus Land Act Guidelines. Califomia Deparment of Housing (HCD), August 2024. r "Chanate Campus Sale", Board of Supervisors' Meeting, November l6,202l,ltem#67A. r ''Surplus Land Act Needs a Realitv Check for Rural Parcels", Daily Joumal. Apil 25,2025 Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. lllf.ay 2025
F5:
No online access is provided for public viewing of county properties. As a result, underutilized lands are not easily identified and pursued by the public.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F4:
Inadequate delegation of authority and a toxic work culture inhibits individual decision-making and contributes to DHS’s failure to perform effectively. DHS Response: “We disagree wholly. Staff has daylighted late payments to providers and late behavioral health contracts that seem to have been an issue within the Department of Health Services for 10 plus years. This was feedback received not only from staff, but also from behavioral health providers. We provided a short-term solution with 6-month advance payments in fiscal year 23-24 and called administration staff back into the office who had been working remotely during the COVID pandemic. Staffing vacancies had also been a factor, but in just over one year we have improved staffing vacancies; decreasing our overall department vacancies by 9% (from 23% in July 2023 to 14% in June 2024). Management believes morale has improved as critical vacancies have been filled.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By November 1st, 2024, DHS and County Human Resources departments shall submit a recruitment and retention plan The Grand Jury acknowledges to the County Executive to reduce DHS vacancies to no more than 10% of authorized non-field positions. (F3, F4) that this recommendation may be implemented in the future. DHS Response: “This recommendation requires further analysis. We are unclear of the definition of what “non-field” positions is referring to. DHS does not track vacancy rates by whether the position serves in a “field” setting or not. We are, however, happy to report that the DHS HR team now has a regular monthly meeting with the County’s central HR with the goal of improving vacancy rates. We now have two analysts in County HR dedicated to working with DHS on our recruitment and retention goals.” HR RESPONSE: “This recommendation requires further analysis. We are unclear of the definition of what "non-field" positions is referring to. DHS does not track vacancy rates by whether the position serves in a "field" setting or not. Nonetheless, we offer the following information. The challenges the Department of Health Services has faced the last several years to fill healthcare related positions are not unique to Sonoma County. There is a shortage of individuals entering the industry and an insufficient number of qualified individuals interested in changing employers right now to fill vacancies at both private and public employers. This shortage has greatly contributed to the department's inability to quickly fill positions in some job classifications as well as an increased vacancy rate, when coupled with the significant growth the department that has experienced in recent years (the number of allocated positions has increased 37% between the start of Fiscal Years 2019/20 and 2024/25.) The job classifications with the highest number of vacant allocations in the Department of Health Services include Behavioral Health Clinician Intern/Clinician, Alcohol and Other Drug Services Counselor I/II, Senior Client Support Specialist, and Environmental Health Specialist Trainee I/II. Positions in these job classifications require either specific education, work experience, and/or professional licensure, which significantly limits the number of qualified applicants the County receives and subsequently progress through examination and selection processes. As of June 28, 2024, the overall vacancy rate for the Department of Health Services was 14.50%. When excluding positions in the aforementioned four job classifications with the department's highest numbers of vacancies, which are also amongst the County's most difficult to fill, the vacancy rate drops to 10.79%. This rate includes positions that work in administration, clinical, and field settings. Human Resources and the Department of Health Services need further clarification to identify what specific positions are being referred to as "authorized non-field positions" in order for Human Resources to determine what the adjusted vacancy rate with that parameter applied. Central Human Resources and the Health Services Department are and will continue meeting regularly to discuss recruitment needs and remain expeditious in developing and continuing efforts to reduce the department's vacancy rate. The two departments have recently collaborated on a tracking mechanism which allows staff to identify the length of time various recruitment, examination, and selection process steps take to complete, determine if there are any "pain points" or delays at any steps in the process, and implement solutions with the intent to reduce delays for future recruitments. Staff are also currently looking at ways to be more strategic in recruiting, examining, and selecting individuals for hard-to-fill job classifications. Current strategies include evaluating the efficacy of recruitment advertising, examination, department selection, and pre-employment processes to maximize visibility, remove hurdles and/or barriers that may cause qualified individuals from either not applying or opting out of the process, and reduce lengthy/protracted timelines which make the County less competitive compared to private sector employers for similar types of positions. As efforts in these areas progress, both departments anticipate Health Services' vacancy rate will continue to decline. Should that not occur, or should additional attention be warranted, the departments will engage with the County Executive if determined necessary at the time.” HR Update: “DHS has been working both internally within the department and with central HR to evaluate current practices and implement process improvements with the goal to reduce vacancy rates and the time it takes to fill positions across the department, not just those who interact with the public. As of 2/18/25 the vacancy rate was 12.22% (739.83 FTE; 90.42 vacant). The department’s vacancy rate on August 7,2024 was 15.11% (731.83 FTE; 110.56 vacant).”
F5:
DHS Fiscal and County general accounting process doesn’t require or retain all information needed for post-fact analysis of who is being paid, whether the payment was the result of a no-bid contract, or whether payment documentation matches funding source requirements. ACTTC RESPONSE: “We disagree wholly or partially with this finding. ACTTC fiscal policies RE-2 and RE-3 define department responsibilities and procedures for grant compliance, monitoring, and reporting. All information uploaded to the County financial system is retained pursuant to adopted retention schedules.” SPI Response: “We disagree wholly or partially with this finding. This is an overly broad statement with very vague language. The County, and particularly the Department of Health Services, is a highly regulated agency where federal and state funding sources require this information All information used in federal and state funding is retained pursuant to retention schedules.”
F6:
County Purchasing and Internal Audit failed to require that DHS follow mandated procurement policies. BOS Response: “We disagree partially with this finding. We agree with the Sonoma Public Infrastructure’s response to this finding.” ACTTC RESPONSE: “We disagree wholly or partially with this finding. Internal Audit is not responsible for enforcing procurement policies. Internal Audit issued a procurement audit report in August 2023, which Included a DHS procurement related finding. The Procurement Process Audit Report is available on our website under "Fiscal Year End June 30,2022. Please see the link to our website below: https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/auditor-controller-treasurer-tax- collector/audit-reports” SPI Response: “We disagree wholly or partially with this finding. While SPI has developed templates for procurement of goods and services that are generally applicable County-wide, these policies do not displace the specialized procedures that certain departments like DHS must follow. Their practices and procedures are designed to address the mandates of federal and state funding sources. As noted, departments may consult SPI staff for guidance and best practices or may elect to conduct their own processes in accordance with established policies.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors will request, and County Auditor will complete and publish, a The Grand Jury acknowledges comprehensive audit report on DHS procurement processes and procedures, contract administration oversight and that this recommendation may compliance with County procurement policy and publicly present said report to the Board of Supervisors. (F1, F3, F6, F7) be implemented in the future. BOS Response: “This recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future if warranted. Currently, the County is undergoing a countywide risk assessment which includes DHS contract administration and ACTTC management. Upon conclusion of the assessment, departments will determine the appropriate steps to ensure departmental compliance with County procurement policies. The County Executive will work with departments to evaluate the need for additional resources which will be made through the countywide budget process. This recommendation will be completed as soon as possible; however, it is not currently known if it can be completed and presented to the Board by December 31, 2025.” BOS Update: “No additional internal reports and/or recommendations for improvement have been produced by DHS since the Countywide risk assessment was initiated. Operational processes for initiating, approving, and managing contract payments have been changed since the initial update: 1/12th payment approach recommendation considered and approved by the Board. Approved 10/15/24 - https://sonoma- county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6888956&GUID=682AA542-F038-44FC-9514-AE2E7FD49265 FYE 23/24 expedited payment Approved 10/15/24 - https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6892948&GUID=BB681D0D-F2A5-402C- 8AC5-4FE4F5FB33A0 On November 22, 2024, we engaged municipal fiscal consultant to provide executive-level project assistance to DHS staff in preparing their Fiscal Year 2025/26 budget, including providing recommendations to department leadership on budget and fiscal best practices. Since October 15, 2024 a retired Human Services contract coordinator has been assisting DHS in reviewing its contract and RFP procedures, templates, annual timelines, and internal processes. Since November 18, 2024, retired Health and Human Services Director from Solano County has been assisting DHS in a variety of operational areas and providing advice and guidance on various fiscal processes and best practices.” 114 June 2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Responses to 2023-24 Civil Grand Jury Reports ACTTC Response: “This recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future if warranted. The ACTTC - Internal Audit Division (IA) issued an audit report of the Sonoma County Procurement Process in August 2023. The report includes a finding that Department of Health Services (DHS) contracts are being single or sole sourced without Purchasing Agent approval. This finding was identified as a Risk Classification B: Significant Control Weakness. The report summarizes testing of 23 of 94 DHS contracts, which found that all 23 were not competitively bid for at least ten years. The IA countywide risk assessment includes DHS contract administration. ACTTC management will evaluate the appropriate scope and resources needed to complete an audit of DHS procurement processes and procedures, contract administration oversight and compliance with County procurement policy. The size and scope of the audit and available resources will determine when a DHS contract audit can be included in the annual Audit Plan. This recommendation will be completed as soon as possible; however, it is not currently known if it can be completed and presented to the Board by December 31, 2025. ACTTC management is also aware that the CEO has engaged a procurement consulting firm to review the purchasing lifecycle and grant subaward processes for the seven Safety Net departments including DHS. An initial report for this engagement is expected in September 2024. The findings and recommendations from this report, as well as the time needed to implement accepted recommendations, may also impact the scope and timing of IA's audit of DHS procurement processes, contract administration and compliance with County policies.” ACTTC Update: … “my office has been working on a strategic initiative to enhance the independence and effectiveness of Internal Audit (IA) and ensure that IA operates in compliance with the Institute of Internal Auditors’ Global Audit Standards. This includes updates to the Internal Audit Charter and increased engagement and oversight of the Internal Audit function by the Board of Supervisors. On March 25, 2025, the ACTTC will present our recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and request that the Board approve updates to the Internal Audit Charter and establish an independent Audit Committee, which will include two members of the Board and a member of the public. Additionally, the ACTTC will include a request for two additional audit staff in the FY 2025-26 requested budget. Internal Audit currently has four staff, made up of three Senior Internal Auditors, and one Audit Manager who also serves as the Chief Audit Executive. The FY 2025-26 requested budget also includes $75,000 for professional services, which will allow IA to contract with external firms to perform audits that IA does not have sufficient resources or expertise to perform.” “The FY 25-26 risk assessment is still in development and should be completed later this Spring and will be used to inform the 25-26 Audit Plan. Although the risk assessment is not completed, Internal Audit (IA) anticipates that an audit of DHS contract administration and oversight will be included in the FY2025-26 audit plan. Planning for this audit has not begun and IA has not determined the resource requirements to perform the audit. Separately, the County CEO and HR departments entered into an agreement with a consulting firm (Municipal Resources Group, LLC) to, in part, review and redesign of DHS’s contracting and procurement. To avoid a duplication of effort, IA’s initial audit of DHS will likely focus on contract administration, monitoring, payments and the design of related procedures and controls. IA will consider auditing DHS procurement procedures and purchasing policy compliance in a future engagement. The decision to have the DHS audit performed by staff or an external accounting firm has not been determined.”
F7:
The BOS failed to require changes to DHS procurement procedures despite published reports that DHS has been violating County procurement policy. BOS Response: “We disagree partially with this finding. The Board of Supervisors called for a new Request for Proposals for homeless services following the issuance of the Pisenti & Brinker, LLC agreed upon procedures report regarding DEMA Consulting & Management.” ACTTC RESPONSE: “We disagree wholly or partially with this finding. The BoS called for DHS to conduct a new competitive Request For Proposal event for homeless services following the issuance of the Pisenti & Brinker, LLC agreed-upon procedures report regarding DEMA Consulting & Management.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors will request, and County Auditor will complete and publish, a The Grand Jury acknowledges comprehensive audit report on DHS procurement processes and procedures, contract administration oversight and that this recommendation may compliance with County procurement policy and publicly present said report to the Board of Supervisors. (F1, F3, F6, F7) be implemented in the future. BOS Response: “This recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future if warranted. Currently, the County is undergoing a countywide risk assessment which includes DHS contract administration and ACTTC management. Upon conclusion of the assessment, departments will determine the appropriate steps to ensure departmental compliance with County procurement policies. The County Executive will work with departments to evaluate the need for additional resources which will be made through the countywide budget process. This recommendation will be completed as soon as possible; however, it is not currently known if it can be completed and presented to the Board by December 31, 2025.” BOS Update: “No additional internal reports and/or recommendations for improvement have been produced by DHS since the Countywide risk assessment was initiated. Operational processes for initiating, approving, and managing contract payments have been changed since the initial update: 1/12th payment approach recommendation considered and approved by the Board. Approved 10/15/24 - https://sonoma- county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6888956&GUID=682AA542-F038-44FC-9514-AE2E7FD49265 FYE 23/24 expedited payment Approved 10/15/24 - https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6892948&GUID=BB681D0D-F2A5-402C- 8AC5-4FE4F5FB33A0 On November 22, 2024, we engaged municipal fiscal consultant to provide executive-level project assistance to DHS staff in preparing their Fiscal Year 2025/26 budget, including providing recommendations to department leadership on budget and fiscal best practices. Since October 15, 2024 a retired Human Services contract coordinator has been assisting DHS in reviewing its contract and RFP procedures, templates, annual timelines, and internal processes. Since November 18, 2024, retired Health and Human Services Director from Solano County has been assisting DHS in a variety of operational areas and providing advice and guidance on various fiscal processes and best practices.” 114 June 2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Responses to 2023-24 Civil Grand Jury Reports ACTTC Response: “This recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future if warranted. The ACTTC - Internal Audit Division (IA) issued an audit report of the Sonoma County Procurement Process in August 2023. The report includes a finding that Department of Health Services (DHS) contracts are being single or sole sourced without Purchasing Agent approval. This finding was identified as a Risk Classification B: Significant Control Weakness. The report summarizes testing of 23 of 94 DHS contracts, which found that all 23 were not competitively bid for at least ten years. The IA countywide risk assessment includes DHS contract administration. ACTTC management will evaluate the appropriate scope and resources needed to complete an audit of DHS procurement processes and procedures, contract administration oversight and compliance with County procurement policy. The size and scope of the audit and available resources will determine when a DHS contract audit can be included in the annual Audit Plan. This recommendation will be completed as soon as possible; however, it is not currently known if it can be completed and presented to the Board by December 31, 2025. ACTTC management is also aware that the CEO has engaged a procurement consulting firm to review the purchasing lifecycle and grant subaward processes for the seven Safety Net departments including DHS. An initial report for this engagement is expected in September 2024. The findings and recommendations from this report, as well as the time needed to implement accepted recommendations, may also impact the scope and timing of IA's audit of DHS procurement processes, contract administration and compliance with County policies.” ACTTC Update: … “my office has been working on a strategic initiative to enhance the independence and effectiveness of Internal Audit (IA) and ensure that IA operates in compliance with the Institute of Internal Auditors’ Global Audit Standards. This includes updates to the Internal Audit Charter and increased engagement and oversight of the Internal Audit function by the Board of Supervisors. On March 25, 2025, the ACTTC will present our recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and request that the Board approve updates to the Internal Audit Charter and establish an independent Audit Committee, which will include two members of the Board and a member of the public. Additionally, the ACTTC will include a request for two additional audit staff in the FY 2025-26 requested budget. Internal Audit currently has four staff, made up of three Senior Internal Auditors, and one Audit Manager who also serves as the Chief Audit Executive. The FY 2025-26 requested budget also includes $75,000 for professional services, which will allow IA to contract with external firms to perform audits that IA does not have sufficient resources or expertise to perform.” “The FY 25-26 risk assessment is still in development and should be completed later this Spring and will be used to inform the 25-26 Audit Plan. Although the risk assessment is not completed, Internal Audit (IA) anticipates that an audit of DHS contract administration and oversight will be included in the FY2025-26 audit plan. Planning for this audit has not begun and IA has not determined the resource requirements to perform the audit. Separately, the County CEO and HR departments entered into an agreement with a consulting firm (Municipal Resources Group, LLC) to, in part, review and redesign of DHS’s contracting and procurement. To avoid a duplication of effort, IA’s initial audit of DHS will likely focus on contract administration, monitoring, payments and the design of related procedures and controls. IA will consider auditing DHS procurement procedures and purchasing policy compliance in a future engagement. The decision to have the DHS audit performed by staff or an external accounting firm has not been determined.”
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
By January 1, 2025, County Purchasing and the County Controller shall implement a system that ensures all no-bid and The Grand Jury acknowledges sole-sourced contracts are identified, accounted for as such, publicly reported, and have required supporting that this Recommendation will documentation and waivers on file. (F3, F4, F5 F6) be implemented in the future. ACTTC Response: “This recommendation will be implemented in the future. Pursuant to the Sonoma County Service Agreement Policy (Policy), the Purchasing Agent administers the Policy and approves Single/Sole Source waiver requests. ACTTC staff is working with the Sonoma County Public Infrastructure - Purchasing Division to implement recommendations in R4. Staff is evaluating identification and reporting strategies, and financial system functionality. The recommendation will be implemented as soon as possible; however, it is not currently known if the recommendation can be fully implemented by January 1, 2025.” ACTTC Update: “ACTTC and Sonoma County Public Infrastructure – Purchasing Division (Purchasing) staff collaborated to create functionality in the financial system to allow Purchasing staff to flag Sole Source or Single Source waivers on Purchase Orders (POs). Purchasing will also have the ability run a Sole/Single Source Waiver report (not currently available). These changes will go-live in the County’s financial system on March 10, 2025 as part of a system update. Purchasing, with support from ACTTC staff, is still working on an implementation plan to make this a required field (requires a lookback on all open POs), ensure all Single and Sole Sources waivers are identified and captured, and lastly how best to make the information publicly available.” SPI Response: “This recommendation has not been implemented but will in the future. The SPI Purchasing Division is currently working with the Auditor's Office to implement a step in the County's financial system (EFS) that would require departments to indicate whether they had fully procured a contract or had a single/sole source waiver approved by the Purchasing Agent. This would potentially also create the ability to run reports. Since this change will require evaluation of current system capabilities, it is unknown whether it could be implemented by the recommended 1/1/2025 date. The department will however, work with staff to implement as soon as possible. The recommendation states that a system shall be implemented ensuring "all no-bid and sole- sourced contracts are identified, accounted for as such, publicly reported, and have required supporting documentation and waivers on file. SPI agrees with this recommendation “with the exception of all no-bid and sole sourced contracts." Delegated authority established by the Board and by policy allow for departments to procure goods and services without as follows: Under Sonoma County Ordinance No. 4654 and the Sonoma County Procurement of Goods and Equipment Policy. County departments may make direct purchases under $7,000. Additionally, under the Sonoma County Service Agreements policy, departments may enter into short form agreements ($5,000) and under. Alternatively, they may conduct an RFP or request a Single/Source waiver. Therefore, documentation and waivers would not be tracked and reported for these instances. It should also be noted that this information would not include contracts for services that are expressly exempt from competitive bidding requirements, such as architectural services, engineering services, and outside legal services. It is important to note that State law exempts these types of services from competitive solicitation because the County is required to select the desired provider based on their special training and experience, not based on cost. For these types of services, the County only solicits requests for qualifications or requests for proposals” June 2025 115 -2019 through 2021-2022 Every year the Civil Grand Jury produces a Continuity Report reviewing official responses to the previous year’s Grand Jury reports. Agencies and elected officials that receive a Civil Grand Jury report are required to respond to it in one of three ways: • The report’s findings may be wholly accepted, or rejected, as written. • The report’s findings may be partially accepted and partially rejected, or • The report’s findings require further analysis. No follow-up action (by either the Civil Grand Jury or the respondent) is required in cases where findings are accepted or rejected. When the respondent indicated that a recommendation required further analysis, however, the public is entitled to know what that analysis concluded; this report will tell you. Similarly, regarding a report’s recommendations, agencies and elected officials must respond in one of four ways: • The recommendation is accepted and has already been implemented. • The recommendation is rejected and no further action will be taken. • The recommendation requires further analysis (which should be completed within six months of publication of the Grand Jury report). • The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. State law requires the heads of government agencies and elected officials to respond within 60 days of the Civil Grand Jury’s issuance of a report with a copy to the governing board; boards, councils and agencies run by boards are allowed an additional 30 days. Of course, substantive issues may not be resolved by the time the subsequent Civil Grand Jury issues its Continuity Report. Responses stating that “further analysis is required” or that “recommendations will be implemented in the future” are a commitment to action that probably won’t be monitored or reported: this can be a convenient way for respondents to kick the can down the road (and sometimes hope it goes unnoticed). This year, the Sonoma County Grand Jury reviewed all unresolved items listed in the “Civil Grand Jury 4 Year Continuity Report” published by the 2023-2024 Civil Grand Jury. The Civil Grand Jury requested agency updates to recommendations that promised further analysis or future action to see whether these commitments had been fulfilled and/or promised actions had been taken by these agencies. The following tables show the status of findings and recommendations that were not resolved in prior years’ reports, and whether government commitments for future action were eventually met. We’re pleased to note that most government commitments were fulfilled and here the Grand Jury is equally pleased to share the list of items still outstanding. June 2025 -2019 Unfulfilled Commitments THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH BUDGET: A Perfect Storm Unresolved Recommendations and Implemented Current Status
R5:
DHS will continue and expedite the Community Based Organization (CBO) No contract evaluation and build performance metrics. Current Status: DHS has stated that it drafted and adopted specific budgetary policies and procedures in the summer of 2019 to address this finding. CAO staff continues to work closely with DHS Finance on budgetary matters—through the normal budget cycle and through board items. Despite this response, from 2022 to the present, DHS contract performance has been problematic, and no performance metrics are being published. Civil Grand Jury Report 2019-2020 Updated All recommendations resolved. Civil Grand Jury Report 2020-2021 Unfulfilled Commitments BROADBAND ACCESS IN SONOMA COUNTY: Broadband IS a Utility; The Quiet Crisis of Availability Unresolved Recommendations and Implemented Current Status
R6:
By September 30, 2021, the Sheriff’s Office, using the reserve Inmate Welfare Partially Trust funds, resume all inmate programs in existence pre-Covid, with funding at the complete same level once Covid restrictions are lifted. Current Status: According to the Sheriff’s Office, inmate programs are being resumed. In-person classes as well as online classes are now offered.
R7:
The Sheriff’s Office restructure the 10-member Inmate Welfare Trust Resolved Committee by December 31, 2021, to include more diverse representation, for example, community members, financial analysts, social workers and educators to bring the Committee more in line with the requirements of Penal Code 5006 regarding commission membership standards to State Prisons. Current Status: The jail does not have to abide by the penal code for state prisons. However, according to the Sheriff’s Office there are now two civilians on the Inmate Welfare Trust Committee, including one educator. The remaining committee members are composed of Sheriff’s Office staff. June 2025 -2022 Continuity Follow-up COVID MITIGATION AND THE COUNTY JAIL And its Unexpected Consequences Unresolved Recommendations and Implemented Current Status
R8:
By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors will consult with the Human Partially, survey Resources Department to consider establishing an Ombudsperson for County in progress in employees to provide a neutral means to voice issues of concern. 2025 Current Status: The Human Resources Department responded that it plans to conduct an employee-engagement survey in 2024 to determine the best path forward.
R13:
By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator’s Partially, no Office work with the Department of Health Services executive leadership team in further follow- developing an actionable plan to address work culture issues, including retaliation, up harassment and bullying. recommended Current Status: DHS responded that it hired an equity manager in March of 2022 who was then hired away by Marin County. Recruitment is underway to fill this position. DHS developed an equity plan in December of 2022. June 2025 119 -2022 Continuity Follow-up
R14:
By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Partially, no Administrator’s Office to work with the Department of Health Services’ executive further follow- leadership team to develop a clearly defined and actionable plan for internal up communication that includes greater transparency and staff participation throughout recommended the department. Current Status: DHS responded that it published an internal newsletter, DHS Connect, in the fall of 2022. Video clips of DHS employees were produced in November of 2023 and used in promotional material to recruit staff.
R16:
By March 1, 2023, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator’s Resolved via Office and the County Human Resources Department to develop a plan for the County org Board’s review and consideration whereby the County Human Resources restructure Department has oversight authority over all satellite human resource divisions. Current Status: The Human Resources Department responded that it will work with a consultant in 2024 to develop recommendations regarding oversight of all satellite-department human resources functions. SMART DECISION-MAKING: Citizen Feedback is Critical for Success Unresolved Recommendations and Implemented Current Status
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
All but Information Services uses the Purchasing Division’s surplus disposal process sparingly, suggesting that many potential assets are not being disposed of timely when they are no longer needed.
F2:
The Real Estate Division is staffed as a service bureau; it does not actively pursue management of the county’s real estate assets. Rather, it acts on request by departments to buy, sell or lease land. If it does not have a request, it does not act. Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Surplus Property Disposal June 2025 103
F3:
No comprehensive list exists that classifies the county’s properties; the county does not know if it is managing its land assets to their best use.
F4:
No single division is responsible for the disposal of the county's land assets. Appropriate disposal requires expertise in real estate, affordable housing and economic development. Furthermore, no county entity is systemically evaluating land for its potential use for affordable housing or economic development.
F5:
No online access is provided for public viewing of county properties. As a result, underutilized lands are not easily identified and pursued by the public.
F6:
The County Assessor doesn’t have the resources needed to eliminate a significant assessment backlog. As a consequence, many taxpayers will get hit with significant back-dated property tax bills when this assessment backlog is cleared.
F7:
Sonoma County sales tax rates are among the highest in California. ACTTC Response: “We disagree wholly or in part with this finding. According to information published by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Sonoma County is tied for 9th highest sales tax rate for California counties and no Sonoma County cities are in the top 90 sales tax rates for California.” BOS Response: “We disagree wholly or in part with this finding. According to information published by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, last updated on 7/1/2024, sales taxes in unincorporated counties range from 7.25% to 10.25%. Sonoma County’s rate of 8.5% is in the middle of this range. Additionally, while some cities have higher tax rates due to voter approved tax measures, no city in Sonoma County has a tax rate in the top 90 cities in California.”
F8:
Citizen Oversight Committees are frequently inoperative, largely ineffective, and have no authority. BOS Response: “We disagree wholly or in part with this finding. Citizen Oversight Committees provide valuable service reviewing expenditures for compliance with expenditure plans. The purpose of the unelected committees is to inform and advise relevant governing bodies and the public to ensure that agencies are held accountable.”
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By December 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors will direct their Sonoma Public Infrastructure Agency to develop a list of all the county’s properties in three parts: properties which have a use or restriction precluding it from other uses; properties currently full utilized; and, properties potentially available for reuse now or in the near future.
R2:
By June 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors will direct County Executive to form a multi- disciplinary team with expertise in real estate, affordable housing and economic development to review underused land assets for potential reuse or sale.
R3:
By December 1, 2026, after the county develops a plan to evaluate properties, the Board of Supervisors will designate some periodic land review, such as every three to five years because land use changes and properties once needed may no longer be needed in the future.
R3a:
By August 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors and ROV develop and implement a plan for enhancing existing ROV security measures and developing new security measures based on recurring threat assessments and recommendations by qualified authorities. The Grand Jury acknowledges that this recommendation has been implemented. ROV Response: “This recommendation is in the process of implementation. The Registrar of Voters has been improving and enhancing security measures based on assessments and recommendations since receiving them and will continue to do so as funding and capacity allows…security cameras added to more areas of the office… Physical security has been enhanced… ROV has been working closer with the Department of Emergency Management and local law enforcement to increase communication and planning for elections.” ROV Update: “We did implement some of the recommendations for the 2024 cycle, including Narcan being available, having detailed procedures for threats being reported from polling sites, waterfall quick
R3b:
By July 31, 2024, ROV create and maintain a record of all incidents of abusive or threatening behavior to support future risk and threat assessment analysis. ROV Response: “This recommendation has been implemented. The Registrar of Voters has created a tracking spreadsheet for staff and extra-help employees to log any instances of abusive or threatening behavior…and provided to the appropriate authorities” The Grand Jury acknowledges that this Recommendation has been implemented. R 3c By July 31,2024, ROV evaluate all recommendations that resulted from its meeting with the Emergency Management Department and establish an implementation schedule for the recommendations it adopts. The Grand Jury acknowledges that this Recommendation has been implemented.
R4:
By December 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors will direct County GIS to make the Sonoma County Surplus Property map publicly available.
R5:
By December 28, 2024 the Board of Supervisors shall fund and authorize temporary staffing to enable the Assessor’s Office to eliminate the assessment backlog within 12 months. The Grand Jury acknowledges that this Recommendation may be implemented in the future. BOS Response: “This recommendation requires further analysis. The Assessor’s Office continues to meet state-mandated timelines for assessments. Since FY 2021-22 the Board of Supervisors has authorized 10.2 FTE additional positions for the Assessor’s Office, an increase of 16% to staffing in that unit. This includes 1.0 term-limited position added during the FY 24-25 budget process. Given the significant timeframe for training and certification requirements, the full effect of these additions is not yet clear. The Board of Supervisors will consider any requests for additional resources made by the Clerk-Recorder-Assessor. Given the limited resources available to the County, further additions will need to be considered in relation to other County needs. Additionally, any new positions added will require training similar to prior additions, making elimination of a backlog in 12 months unlikely.” MADF A/K/A “The County Jail”: Déjà vu all over again Respondents: SCSO: elected Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office BOS: Board of Supervisors
R6:
By December 31, 2024, mandated monthly overtime for SCSO Corrections Officers will average no more than 25 hours a month. The Grand Jury acknowledges that this recommendation will not be implemented. SCSO Response: “The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable and could potentially violate state mandates pertaining to operating a correctional facility. The Sheriff's Office acknowledges the importance of having a minimal amount of overtime per month for our correctional deputies. The Sheriff’s Office is unable to control many factors that contribute to overtime. Aspects such as employee separation, vacation leave, sick leave, FMLA leave, work related injury, non-work-related injury and training make up many reasons for increased overtime hours for our employees. The Correctional Deputy job class is primarily composed of fixed post positions. Therefore, the most efficient method to alleviate overtime for our correctional deputies would be to increase allocations in the correctional deputy job class. More allocations would provide relief staffing, or staffing used to cover vacant posts due to vacation, training, injury, and illness. There are currently 208 allocations in the correctional deputy job class. ln FY 08-09, there were 246 allocations for correctional deputies. Over the course of several years correctional deputy positions have been eliminated, eliminating relief coverage. Therefore, any vacant posts due to vacation, training, injury and illness results in an increased need for mandatory overtime coverage. An increase in allocations would allow the Sheriff's Office to efficiently backfill employees on various types of leave with full-time employees, thus reducing the total overtime per month. For this response to be reasonable, an increase in overall allocations would be necessary.” Often Reported, Never Repaired: Department of Health Services Respondents: DHS: Dept. of Health Services; ACTTC: Auditor/Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector; SPI: Public infrastructure; HR: SoCo Human Resources; BOS: Board of Supervisors