Ventura County 2007-2008 - California Grand Jury Reports

May 26, 2009 — "Ventura County Detention*

1 pages 3 recommendations

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: 2) Approached Ventura County Fire for a donation of their old AED when they upgraded to a newer model (no longer viable since the older devices required 40 hours of training and are missing parts)

R3: Consulted with our own Fire Department as to response times and capabilities of providing advanced medical service in a timely manner

R4: Ensured all police personnel are current in CPR training As a result of this review we have determined it is not necessary to have AED units immediately available in the booking area. All police personnel are trained in CPR and could immediately apply this procedure in an emergency. Fire/Medical personnel have a response time of less than three minutes to our facility with a Fire Station being less than a block away. I hope I have adequately responded to the Grand Jury's recommendation in this area. Feel free to call should you have any questions. Sincerely, 1 Mar Kuni RECEIVED JUN - 1 2009 Stephen MacKinnon Chief of Police VENTURA COUNTY GRAND JURY

November 17, 2008 — Combined Board of Supervisors' and County Executive Office (ceo) Responses to the Grand Jury Report: Ventura County*

1 pages 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R01: The Grand Jury recommends the County revise its Administrative Policy Manual to provide guidance in reporting loss or theft of sensitive non-fixed assets. Partially concur. The Board of Supervisors will ask the CEO to review the related provisions in the Administrative Manual and to evaluate whether revisions are necessary for the adequate inventory control and reporting of sensitive non-fixed assets below $5,000.

R02: The County should require annual physical inventories of all sensitive non-fixed assets, rather than the current practice of periodic inventories. Partially concur. The Board will ask the CEO to review and evaluate the policy of periodic inventories. The sheer number of sensitive non-fixed assets may make it impractical to annually inventory all such assets due to potential time and budget constraints. Each department may have its own unique circumstances that would dictate some form of random sampling as more efficient. Therefore, a more defined and flexible policy giving some discretion to Department heads may better serve the County's interests.

R03: The Grand Jury recommends District management correct internal control weaknesses that facilitated the loss of District property, and report corrective actions to the BOS and Auditor-Controller. Partially Concur. The board agrees the Fire District needs to implement changes to its inventory control procedures to include a physical inventory and that it be conducted by an appropriate employee that maintains the integrity of the District's checks and balances. However, any corrective actions should be reported to the CEO and Auditor- Controller. The CEO will monitor the implementation of such actions as already established in its audit follow up procedures.

R05: The District and the Auditor-Controller should inventory all sensitive non-fixed assets including laptop computers. The results of the inventory should be reported to the CEO and BOS. Concur. The Board and CEO support the Fire District working with the Auditor- Controller to inventory and reconcile the District's computer equipment for 2007. The District has committed to implementing new procedures to track these assets and will be conducting a physical inventory each year. Again, the CEO will monitor the implementation of the new procedures and will request the results of the inventory.

August 13, 2008 — Ventura Port District: Delivery of Fire Services*

3 pages 7 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F01: - F-06. Agree. The National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) recommends several

F07: time frames for dispatch processing targets: The following are the NFPA dispatch processing time standards: Ninety-five percent of alarms received on emergency lines • shall be answered within 15 seconds and ninety-nine percent of alarms shall be answered within 40 seconds. Ninety-five percent of emergency call processing and dispatching shall be completed within 60 seconds and ninety-nine percent of call processing and dispatching shall be completed within 90 seconds. RECEIVED Where alarms are transferred from the primary public safety answering point (PSAP) to a secondary answering point, the SEP 1 6 2008 transfer procedure shall not exceed 30 seconds for ninety- five percent of all alarms processed. VENTURA COUNTY GRAND JURY The total NFPA dispatch processing time recommendation (from first ring at the primary public safety answering point to dispatching the appropriate response crews) is 105 seconds. Poli Street • P.O. Box 99 • Ventura, California 93002-0099 • 805.654.7800 • cityofventura.net Printed on 100% post consumer recycled paper

F08: - F-13. Agree. The "roving" fire engine was instituted in July 2007.

F14: F-15. - F-16. Agree. Findings - City of Ventura

F15: - F-16. Agree. Findings - City of Ventura

Page 2

F38: City management projects a decrease in budgeted sales tax revenues of $2.0 million. A projected $4 million budget gap for 2008-2009 was closed with service and expense eliminations, reductions and restructuring.

F39: Agree. Recommendations

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R02: Council action in February 2007, which established a "Fire Development Impact Fee." This fee will fund future fire related capital projects, including construction of a new station servicing the Harbor and surrounding communities. A capital project for a new fire station is contained in the City of Ventura Capital Improvement Project Plan 2008-2013. Funds have already been allocated to partially fund construction costs. The Capital Plan calls for preliminary design and CEQA review to begin in fiscal year 2009-10 and construction beginning in 2011-12. Staffing costs will be partially offset with the anticipated revenue from the 9-1-1 fees that will fund a major portion of current communications center costs, freeing up revenue for adding staff. The new fire engine for this station was purchased in fiscal year 2007-2008. With anticipated revenues from the 9-1-1 fees, the City plans to

R03: expand the hours of the roving engine company to maximize emergency response capabilities within the City and Harbor area. Expanding the hours of the roving engine company is anticipated to begin in July 2009.

R06: This recommendation has been implemented. The VCFD continues in a collaborative effort with the Ventura County Fire Protection District to improve overall response times. This recommendation has been implemented. The reduction of the

July 23, 2008 — Ventura Harbor July 23, 2008 Don Cody, Foreman Ventura County Grand Jury*

2 pages 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R04: The District should continue the use of HPOs to deliver EMT services in the Harbor Area until Fire Station 7 is built and staffed. The District concurs with this recommendation. The public and the HPOs have benefitted from the close relationship between the Ventura Fire Department and the Harbor Patrol. The Fire Department provides quarterly training opportunities for the Harbor Patrol Officers to help fulfill the continuing education requirements for EMTs as set forth by the County Emergency Medical Services.

R05: The District should reinstate Harbor Patrol staffing to a 24-hour seven days-a- week basis to enhance response time during those hours not covered by the City's roving engine. RECEIVED Ventura Port District 5 2008 AUG 1603 Anchors Way Drive, Ventura, CA 93001-4229 805/642-8538 • FAX 805/658-2249 VENTURA COUNTY www.venturaharbor.com GRAND JURY This recommendation will not be implemented in the near future. The District has considered, and will periodically reconsider, the feasibility of reinstating 24-hour patrol coverage. The Harbormaster has examined the following alternatives: Changing the Harbor Patrol from a 4/10 schedule to a 5/8 schedule; Implementing a 12-hour shift; Hiring a private security company to provide patrolling responsibilities; Changing the Harbor Patrol to a 24-hour shift. • He has concluded that each alternative would require either: Hiring additional staff; • Modifying the staffing so only one officer would be on duty for an extended period of time each night; A complete change in philosophy from one of "active patrol" to one of "respond only", similar to that of a Fire Department. Thus far, the Board is pleased with the public service that is provided by the 4/10 schedule with 20-hour staffing each day. Although 24-hour staffing was originally discontinued for budgetary constraints, the current system offers the following benefits to the public and the District's employees. The District provides a minimum of two Harbor Patrol Officers on duty for the hours that the Operations Center is staffed and up to four officers on weekends; Turn over in the Harbor Patrol is low. This is in no small part attributable to the • 4/10 schedule and the fact that the officers do not have to work graveyard shifts; Staff is better utilized during busier hours instead of being underutilized during the early morning hours and providing a decreased level of service because only one officer would be on duty for at least 8 hours of a 24-hour period. Calls for service have been analyzed several times in the past. Each analysis indicated that 0.5% of calls for service occurred from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. The District is committed to assisting in finding a permanent solution which will eliminate the long-standing history of extended VCFD response times in the Harbor Area. This situation may adversely affect residents and visitors to the Harbor, but it appears that until a solution is found this could affect future development in the Harbor. Sincerely, Ceith Turner, Chairman Ventura Port District Board of Port Commissioners Cc: Oscar Peña, General Manager Honorable Colleen Toy White, Presiding Judge Port District Response to Grand Jury Report Ventura Port District: Delivery of Fire Services

July 23, 2008 — Ventura Harbor July 23, 2008 Don Cody, Foreman Ventura County Grand Jury*

2 pages 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R01: The Grand Jury recommends that the District revisit re-funding its existing COP debt issue in view of its continuing improved financial position. This recommendation has been implemented. The Board of Port Commissioners took action at its May 28, 2008 Board Meeting to refinance a portion of the 1998 Certificates of Participation (COPs) through City National Bank at an aggressive interest rate to the District on a "Bank Qualified" transaction. On June 16, 2008 the Private Placement Agreement for $10,000,000 was signed and on June 17, 2008 the escrow securities were subscribed to and the transaction was finalized. The arbitrage yield on the refunding is 4.43% vs. 6.375% on the 1998 COPs. The fiscal annual savings, net of the existing reserve fund and interest earnings thereon are $120,996 and the total savings are $2,227,561. The net present value savings are $1,509,319 or 13.97%. The 2008 Refunding will have a final maturity date of August 1, 2027, one year shorter than the 1998 COPs. This refunding leaves a balance of $2,565,000 outstanding in the 1998 COP Series which may be refunded in the future under favorable market conditions. Ventura Port District 1603 Anchors Way Drive, Ventura, CA 93001-4229 805/642-8538 • FAX 805/658-2249 www.venturaharbor.com

R02: The Grand Jury recommends that both the City and the District take advantage of every opportunity to facilitate port economic development, particularly the development of District Parcels 15, 16, and 18, and the upgrading/improvement of older District properties. Economic Development The District wholeheartedly supports this recommendation and will continue to focus its efforts to improve economic development throughout the harbor; particularly the development of Parcels 15, 16 & 18. As the Applicant for a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) for Parcels 15,16 & 18, the City submitted an application to the Coastal Commission for the Sondermann Ring Partners (SRP) Project in March 2008. Since that time, the Coastal Commission staff has requested additional information about the project, so the application was deemed incomplete. On June 23, 2008, the City provided the information requested by the Coastal Commission staff. On July 8, 2008 the City was advised that the proposed LCPA was deemed complete; however, the project has not been scheduled for a hearing date at this time. Instead, the Coastal Commission staff will go before the Commission at the September 2008 hearing to request a time extension to process the LCPA. The District is disappointed with this potential delay, but will continue working with SRP and the City to continue to move this process forward. Upgrading District Property Over the last few years, the District has been involved with Capital Improvement Projects to improve its infra-structure throughout the harbor. In 2007/2008 fiscal year, the District expended $609,000 on building, dredging, and dock improvement projects and has allocated $3,879,000 for building, dredging, dock & launch ramp improvements for the 2008/2009 fiscal year. The Board of Port Commissioners feels that the District is financially stable and is taking the proper steps to ensure the long-term financial viability of this Independent Special District. Sincerely, Keith Turner, Chairman Ventura Port District Board of Port Commissioners Cc: Oscar Peña, General Manager Honorable Colleen Toy White, Presiding Judge RECEIVED 5 408 ALLG VF VENTURA COUNTY GRAND JURY Port District Response to Grand Jury Report

July 23, 2008 — Ventura Port District Financial Viability Review

22 pages 39 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 39 findings

F01: The District is an Independent Special District governed by a five member Board of Port Commissioners, serving fixed terms, who are 2 Ventura Port District Finance appointed by the Mayor of the City of Ventura and confirmed by the full City Council. [Ref-03]

F02: The District is an Enterprise District that operates similar to a private business in that it is predominately self-supporting from operational revenues although it receives some property tax revenue and periodic grant funds. [Ref-01]

F03: The District’s geographic area, assessed valuation, and population are contained within the City of Ventura; District boundaries encompass the City. The District’s current property holdings consist of 274 acres: 152 acres of land and 122 acres of water.

F04: The District receives a pro-rata share of the Ventura County general tax levy because a levy was in place when Proposition 13 was added to the State Constitution in 1978. Budgeted FY2007-2008 property tax revenues are approximately 12% of total budgeted revenues. [Ref-03, Ref-08] Federal Involvement

F05: Under Public Law 909-483, the ACE is responsible for Ventura Harbor entrance and sand trap dredging, as well as necessary offshore breakwater repairs. ACE has funded and performed entrance/sand trap dredging and breakwater maintenance services since 1983. [Ref-03]

F06: ACE funding is contingent on annual federal budget appropriations. [Ref-03]

F07: As a consequence of a lawsuit and subsequent judgment known as the “Ellison Judgment”, the District is required to keep the channel from the ocean to the Harbor and the Ventura Keys area open and free of shoaling. The judgment also requires the District to maintain a $3 million reserve fund, currently fully funded, for potential maintenance and/or sand trap bypassing costs. [Ref-01]

F08: According to the Ventura County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) October 2007 MSR, “. . . termination of federal entrance and sand trap dredging would have a significant financial impact on the Port District’s financial viability.” [Ref-01] Bankruptcy/Recovery

F09: The Ventura Port District Public Facilities Corporation was formed in 1992 as a non-profit benefit entity for the purpose of issuing COP debt to purchase bankrupt developer-owned Village improvements located on land leased from the District. [Ref-01]

F10: The District filed for Chapter Nine bankruptcy protection in August 1993 as a consequence of losing a breach of contract lawsuit. Subsequently, the District was a Chapter Nine debtor until 1998 when the Bankruptcy Court approved a Business Plan that resulted in the sale of $15 million in COP debt. [Ref-02, Ref-03] Ventura Port District Finance 3

F11: The August 2001 Belknap Study noted, “. . . major threats to the City of Ventura’s economic condition include obsolescence of the Village shopping area, which would require the Port District to make large capital improvements beyond the District’s capability.” [Ref-03]

F12: The District gained ownership of Village leasehold improvements in the late 1990s as a result of retiring Village related debt through the issuance of COP. Significant savings were achieved by consolidating Village operations into District operations. [Ref-02]

F13: The COP issued by the District in 1998, along with State Boating and Waterways loans, brought the District’s long term debt (principal only) to approximately $19.2 million, roughly four times the District’s FY 2001-2002 annual budget. [Ref-02]

F14: The court approved Business Plan provided actions required to achieve and maintain a level of financial viability, provide for maximum payment of creditor debt, and carry out the District’s public purposes. [Ref-02]

F15: An October 2001 report on the financial viability of the District further noted, “. . . without additional revenue producing improvements, a deteriorating financial condition was likely because of expenses growing at a higher rate than revenues and, current reserves would eventually be usurped, debt coverage ratios would decline and an inability to properly maintain existing facilities would likely occur.” [Ref-02]

F16: Adoption of most of the Business Plan recommendations by the summer of 2001 resulted in a major improvement in District financial viability. After payment of debt service, a net surplus of $700,000 was realized for FY2000-2001. Addition of this net surplus to the District’s prior year’s reserves increased total reserves to approximately $5 million at the end of FY2000-2001. [Ref-02]

F17: The August 2001 Belknap Study predicted that District debt service would consume around 20% of the District’s annual revenue until the year 2028. [Ref-03] Port District Parcels 15, 16 & 18

F18: According to the District’s 2001 financial viability assessment report, the one major recommendation made in the Business Plan remaining unimplemented as of 2001, was the leasing and development of District Parcels 15, 16, & 18. As noted in this report, “. . . the development of these parcels is considered the most important change necessary to insure financial viability of the Harbor” and “. . . the timely implementation (development) of Parcels 15, 16, & 18 should be the most important strategy for the District to implement.” [Ref-02]

Related Recommendations (1)

F19: According to the Belknap Study, “. . . the Port District’s future is highly reliant upon future development of Harbor Parcels 15, 16, & 18 and a continuing favorable economy as it relates to tourism and fishing.” [Ref-03] 4 Ventura Port District Finance

Related Recommendations (1)

F20: Development of the District’s key remaining open space areas (Parcels 15, 16, & 18) has been delayed more than three years as a consequence of: • a City suggestion to significantly modify original project plans to accommodate a more open “urban plan” concept • California Coastal Commission administration/staff changes and resulting requests for up-dated/additional information

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The Grand Jury recommends that the California Coastal Commission complete its review and processing of the District’s application to develop District Parcels 15, 16, & 18 as quickly as possible. (C-08) Responses Responses Required: Board of Port Commissioners, Ventura Port District (R-01, R-02) City Council, City of Ventura (R-02) Responses Requested: California Coastal Commission (R-03) References Ref-01 LAFCo Municipal Service Review, Ventura Port District, October 2007 Ref-02 Ventura Harbor Financial Viability Assessment, Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc., October 17, 2001 Ref-03 Ventura Port District Study, “A Service Coordination Consolidation Analysis,” Andrew S. Belknap, August 2001 8 Ventura Port District Finance Ref-04 Ventura County Star newspaper article, “Zoning Changes OK’d at Ventura Harbor,” January 24, 2007 Ref-05 Ventura Port District Financial Statement (unaudited), month of June 2007 Ref-06 Ventura Port District Financial Statements, (audited), FY2004-2005, FY2005-2006 and FY2006-2007 Ref-07 Los Angeles Times newspaper article, “Housing Slump is Cutting Tax Bills,” March 28, 2008 Ref-08 Ventura Port District Budget, FY2007-2008 Ref-09 Ventura Port District Finance Department Ref-10 Ventura Port District Administration Attachments Att-01 Statement of Revenues/Expenses and Changes in Net Assets Att-02 Comparative Cash Flow Statement Att-03 Reconciliation of Net Income to Net Cash Flow Ventura Port District Finance 9 (This page intentionally blank) 10 Ventura Port District Finance Attachment-01 Statement of Revenues/Expenses and Changes in Net Assets Ventura Port District Finance 11 (This page intentionally blank) 12 Ventura Port District Finance Ventura Port District Finance 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Ventura Port District Finance Attachment-02 Comparative Cash Flow Statement Ventura Port District Finance 15 (This page intentionally blank) 16 Ventura Port District Finance Ventura Port District Finance 17 (This page intentionally blank) 18 Ventura Port District Finance Attachment-03 Reconciliation of Net Income to Net Cash Flow Ventura Port District Finance 19 (This page intentionally blank) 20 Ventura Port District Finance Ventura Port District Finance 21 (This page intentionally blank) 22 Ventura Port District Finance

F21: California Coastal Commission approval of revised Parcels 15, 16, & 18 plans is anticipated by January 2009.

F22: The anticipated developer of District Parcels 15, 16, & 18 (Sondermann Ring Partners) has committed to pay the City of Ventura $3.25 million to help build a new Port Area (District Parcels 1-20 within District property boundaries) (Port) fire station to improve current emergency response times. [Ref-04] Operations/Finance

F23: A preponderance of District revenues are derived from marina lease payments and tenant rent in the Village. Historically, 10-15% of District revenues are attributable to a pro-rata share of property taxes received by the District, interest earnings on invested funds, and periodic intergovernmental grants. [Ref-01]

F24: Currently, all four of the District’s marinas are 90-95% occupied compared to late 1990’s and early 2000’s occupancy in the low to mid 70% range. [Ref-02, Ref-03]

F25: As District marina leases have been re-negotiated, dredging in lessee water areas has become a lessee responsibility. Currently, the District is responsible for dredging only the Ventura West Marina.

F26: The District’s FY2006-2007 budgeted net income was $324,100 and was subsequently modified to $490,518. According to the District’s unaudited June 2007 financial statement the actual net income totaled $846,112. [Ref-05]

F27: District property tax revenues for FY2006-2007 totaled $916,229, an increase of $631,775 and $693,594 over FY2004-2005 & FY2005-2006 respectively, when a majority of the District’s property tax revenues were diverted to the State “Education Revenue Augmentation Fund” (ERAF) to aid with State budget/finance problems. [Ref-06]

F28: Despite current housing market declines and resulting lowered property assessments, a rise in the overall FY2007-2008 property tax base is anticipated because of new developments, continuing home sales, and annual 2% Proposition 13 increases, which result in higher assessment values. [Ref-07] Ventura Port District Finance 5

F29: District property tax revenues for FY2007-2008 are budgeted at $925,000. Actual Property Tax apportionments through May 2008 total $958,000. [Ref-09]

F30: District FY2006-2007 interest earnings totaled $433,926. Based on anticipated lower interest rates and lower interest earnings investment balances, budgeted FY2007-2008 interest revenues were reduced to $320,000. Actual interest earnings through March 2008 total $351,000. [Ref-06, Ref-08, Ref-09]

F31: Harbor Village FY2006-2007 rent revenues decreased approximately $23,000 as a consequence of losing two restaurant tenants. Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Village rents, however, are anticipated to be significantly improved with the addition of a new restaurant tenant and other positive tenant lease adjustments. [Ref-05, Ref-10]

F32: The District’s FY2005-2006 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budget was $2,425,000 and $2,221,189 was expended. The District’s FY2006-2007 CIP budget was $837,000 and $188,576 was expended. The District’s adopted FY2007-2008 CIP budget is $2,111,000 and District management projects total current year CIP expenditures will be approximately $900,000. [Ref-06, Ref-08, Ref-10]

F33: According to District management, it is not financially realistic for the District to acquire large marinas in the Ventura Harbor; however, it is potentially feasible to acquire and operate a small marina.

F34: In recent years, District management explored re-funding the District’s existing COP debt with a larger debt issue to lower its existing interest rate and to generate additional capital funds for marina acquisition and capital projects. The re-funding was not pursued as a consequence of the District not qualifying for a satisfactory bond rating and because potential lenders wanted the District to have additional sources of revenue. [Ref-04] Ventura Port District-City of Ventura Nexus

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The Grand Jury recommends that the District revisit re-funding its existing COP debt issue in view of its continuing improved financial position. (C-02 through C-07)

F35: According to the 2001 Belknap Study, “From a business standpoint, the Harbor and the overall City of Ventura economy are interwoven.” [Ref-03]

F36: The Executive Summary of the LAFCo MSR of the District states, “. . . in terms of government structure, the Port District and the City of Ventura should continually look for opportunities for efficiencies gained through active collaboration.” [Ref-01]

F37: Subsequent to presentation of the 2001 Belknap Study, the City of Ventura and the District entered into a joint service agreement to combine City firefighters with Harbor Patrol Officers on the District’s fireboat. The agreement provides for use of the District’s fire boat to provide fire fighting services for the Port, the Ventura Keys, the Pierpont water areas, and the Ventura Pier. [Ref-01] 6 Ventura Port District Finance

F38: At a joint 2007 meeting with the Board of Port Commissioners, the Ventura City Council reaffirmed its support of the District and its economic goals.

F39: In a January 2007 Ventura County Star newspaper article, a Ventura City Councilman stated, “I view this project (the development of Port District Parcels 15, 16, & 18) as absolutely vital to the economic interests of the city and the financial integrity of the harbor.” [Ref-04] Conclusions C-01. The Grand Jury concurs with the LAFCo MSR finding that continued participation of the federal government through its ACE, in the provision of District dredging and breakwater/jetty repair services, is critical to the financial stability/viability of the District. (F-05 through F-08) C-02. Based on District property tax apportionment of $958,000 through May 2008, current year property tax revenues will likely increase to approximately $960,000 or 12% of projected FY2007-2008 revenues. (F-28, F-29) [Att-01, Att-02] C-03. Based on Port District interest earnings of $351,000 through March 2008, current year interest earnings project to approximately $438,000. (F-30) [Att-01] C-04. Based on projected revenues/expenditures, and resulting net assets and cash/cash equivalents as of the end of FY2007-2008, the District appears to be financially stable. Future stability is dependent on multiple factors including: • marina occupancy levels • successful Harbor Village commercial operations • continuing federal government dredging and breakwater maintenance services • no repeat diversion of District property tax revenues • successful development of District Parcels 15, 16, & 18 (F-05 through F-08, F-18 through F-21, F-23 through F-25, F-27 through F-31) [Att-01, Att-02] C-05. Based on projected District revenues and expenditures through June 2008, it is likely that the District’s FY2007-2008 budgeted year-end Surplus/Change in Fixed Assets of $801,515 will be exceeded by approximately $356,500 resulting in a corresponding increase in budgeted Ending Net Assets from $12.87 million to approximately $13.22 million. (F-29 through F-32) [Att-01] C-06. Based on projected operating and non-operating cash flows, as well as projected capital and related expenditures as of June 2008, it is likely that the District’s budgeted negative cash flow of $1,006,485 will be positive by approximately $561,000. This results in a corresponding Ventura Port District Finance 7 $1.57 million increase over the District’s budgeted year-end $3.59 million Projected Unrestricted Cash Balance to approximately $5.16 million. (F-24, F-28 through F-32) [Att-03] C-07. Based on the FY2007-2008 District budget and year-end projections, FY2007-2008 debt service will consume approximately 14% of current year total annual revenue versus, “. . . around 20% until the year 2028,” as anticipated in the 2001 Belknap Study. (F-17) [Att-01] C-08. Successful development and operation of the District represent a “win- win” opportunity in that both the District and the City of Ventura are benefited financially as well as operationally. In particular, the development of District Parcels 15, 16, & 18 should result in the District becoming an increasingly important economic engine for the City of Ventura. (F-18, F-19, F-35, F-38, F-39) Recommendations

July 18, 2008 — Human Services Agency Assistance Programs: Caseloads and Training

4 pages 16 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 16 findings

F01: The use of the computer was challenging for some HSA caseworkers who found it difficult to switch from a mostly paper-based system to a totally computerized system.

F02: The training provided to HSA caseworkers who handle multiple benefits using the CalWIN Training System is lengthy and complex. The training includes classroom and practical experience using the CalWIN Training System to simulate real caseloads.

F03: Training is provided by HSA instructors who divide it into system use and benefits administration. Some HSA trainers are more versed in program benefits while others in the CalWin System. In some instances, a system instructor may not be able to answer benefits/program questions, and a benefits instructor may not be able to answer system questions.

F04: New CalWIN employee training is composed of the following: • eight weeks of classroom training on the system and programs • eighteen weeks of closely supervised training while working a reduced caseload • ongoing training for system enhancements and fixes • ongoing refresher training using the CalWIN Training System • ongoing training by leads and first level management to assist workers who need extra help

F05: Prior to the conversion from the Welfare Information Computation and Reporting System (WICAR) to the CalWIN System, most HSA caseworkers handled a single benefit program.

F06: Some caseworkers had difficulty converting from the WICAR System, where they administered a single benefit, to the CalWIN System where they administered multiple benefits.

F07: There is ongoing instruction to cross train as many caseworkers as possible to be “Combo Workers”. This training qualifies HSA caseworkers to administer multiple benefits programs.

F08: There are ongoing monthly team meetings between office management and caseworkers regarding training, system enhancements, caseloads, and other concerns.

F09: Employees are notified of enhancements, system problems, and program changes brought about by legislative action. This is done either electronically, or if extensive, in paper form.

F10: Operations Manuals have not been updated to reflect the CalWIN System; however, the manuals do reflect current benefits/programs administration.

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: Complete the updates of the Operations Manuals within a two-year time frame to reflect the CalWIN System. (C-04)

F11: A project to rewrite Operations Manuals using “Policy Tech”, a software package designed to support this function, was recently initiated and will take approximately two years to complete.

F12: One of the objectives of the CalWIN System is the reduction or elimination of supporting paper files, however a large number of supporting paper files are still being maintained and are sometimes difficult to locate.

Related Recommendations (2)

R04: Complete the imaging software study and testing as soon as possible. (C-05)

R05: Implement imaging technology to reduce paper and provide better customer service. (C-05)

F13: HSA and the Information Technology Department have initiated a project to evaluate imaging software packages which will eliminate most CalWIN supporting paper files.

F14: Caseloads assigned to employees vary: • fully trained “Combo Workers” have a caseload of approximately 300 which can vary from office to office • caseworkers who have recently completed training have caseloads of approximately one-half of those fully trained

Related Recommendations (1)

R06: Complete the caseload analysis for HSA caseworkers using the CalWIN System by the summer of 2008 and implement all required changes. (C-06) Responses Responses Required: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-06) Responses Requested: Human Services Agency, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-06)

F15: Management is currently studying caseloads and will make adjustments as necessary. This study should be completed during the summer of 2008.

F16: HSA employees stated that although more time is spent setting up new cases using the CalWIN System than the old WICAR System, less time is needed for client record updates. Conclusions C-01. Some HSA caseworkers found the conversion to the CalWIN System difficult and challenging despite the amount of training. (F-01 through F-07) C-02. The amount of training provided to caseworkers using the CalWIN System is extensive and on-going. (F-01, F-04, F-05, F-08 through

July 18, 2008 — Oxnard Harbor District: Port Security and Safety

16 pages 17 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 17 findings

F01: District management states the Port is a Tier 3 port operating in a region subject to a Tier 1 security risk.

F02: The District employs a State of California certified contract security service whose primary responsibility is main gate access to the Port.

F03: The District employs eight Wharfingers who generally work 10 hour shifts. At least one Wharfinger is required to be on duty each shift; these shifts are round-the-clock 7 days a week.

F04: District management states Wharfingers perform thirty-one essential functions; eleven of these relate directly to the security and safety of the Port. [Att-01]

F05: Wharfingers are designated port security officers who patrol District properties on foot, in a vehicle, and when required, in a patrol boat. [Att-01, Item 2] Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security 3

F06: Wharfingers wear distinctive uniforms with shoulder patches and a metal badge stamped Wharfinger/Oxnard Harbor District.

F07: Wharfingers are unarmed.

F08: The Proprietary Security Services Act in Chapter 11.4 of Division 3 of the California Business and Professions Code, (§§7574-7574.7) requires private security officers to register with the California Department of Consumer Affairs. [Ref-02]

F09: District Wharfingers are not required to comply with the Proprietary Security Services Act as a pre-condition of employment, nor are they required to have a California Security Certificate, commonly known as a Guard Card. [Att-02]

F10: Once employed, Wharfingers are not required to receive training by the District to obtain their Guard Card.

F11: The District has an administrative manual for all employees; it does not have a specific Operations Manual for Wharfingers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The District should develop a Field Operations Manual for Wharfingers. (C-01)

F12: The District has a twenty-four hour security camera and recording system.

F13: According to District management there are periods when the camera is not observed by a District employee.

Related Recommendations (1)

R06: The District should provide 24-hour uninterrupted observation of the port security camera system. (C-08)

F14: Wharfingers carry a portable two-way radio that is used for internal communication and ship traffic. The radios are not programmed to directly communicate with local public safety responders. When a public safety response, i.e., police, fire, is required at District facilities, the Wharfingers call 911 using the nearest telephone or cell phone.

Related Recommendations (2)

R04: Wharfingers' radios should provide direct two-way communications to primary public safety agencies. (C-06)

R05: The District should develop backup systems of communication with responding public safety agencies. Additional methods of communication may include devices such as a dedicated telephone circuit, commonly known as a "ring down phone". (C-06)

F15: Over the past four years, the District has received approximately $1.3 million in DHS grants to strengthen port security.

Related Recommendations (1)

R07: The District should continue to pursue strengthening and upgrading Port security without regard to funding sources. (C-09) Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security 5 Responses Responses Required: Board of Harbor Commissioners, Oxnard Harbor District (R-01 through R-07) Responses Accepted: United States Coast Guard Station Channel Islands (R-01 through R-06) Commanding Officer Naval Base Ventura County (R-01 through R-06) References Ref-01 http://www.tsa.gov/join/grants/ipp_faqs.shtm Ref-02 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=85675516723+1+0+0&WAISac Attachments Att-01 Oxnard Harbor District Wharfinger Job Description Att-02 Oxnard Harbor District Wharfinger Recruitment Flyer 6 Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security Attachment-01 Oxnard Harbor District Wharfinger Job Description Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security 7 (This page intentionally blank) 8 Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security 9 10 Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security 11 (This page intentionally blank) 12 Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security Attachment-02 Oxnard Harbor District Wharfinger Recruitment Flyer Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security 15 (This page intentionally blank) 16 Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security

F16: Ports in the United States are eligible to apply for DHS port security grants which total $400 million. The State of California has $40 million available for port security grants state-wide. The District intends to apply for these grants.

Related Recommendations (1)

F17: In December 2007, the White House Office of Management and Budget proposed a nationwide $1.4 billion reduction for the fiscal 2009 DHS grants, some of which specifically target port security. Conclusions C-01. A Wharfinger position, as utilized by the District, is a multi-faceted position because of the variety of assigned duties to be performed. (F-03 through F-08) C-02. Even though Wharfingers perform many sensitive security functions, they are not subject to security officer certification as outlined in the Proprietary Services Act. (F-04, F-05, F-08 through F-10) 4 Oxnard Harbor District: Safety & Security C-03. Wharfingers perform security functions, although they are not subject to a comprehensive background evaluation, such as fingerprint checks, as required of private security officers under the Proprietary Services Act. (F-04, F-08) C-04. Wharfingers would be better prepared to perform safety and security functions if they received similar certified training as outlined in the Proprietary Security Services Act. (F-08) C-05. The lack of certified training, as outlined in the Proprietary Security Services Act, could raise liability issues for the District. (F-08, F-09) C-06. Wharfingers' ability to contact emergency pubic safety responders is limited by primary reliance on the 911 system. Reliability would be strengthened by the development of additional means of communication. (F-14) C-07. Port security is not optimal when only one Wharfinger is on duty. (F-02, F-03, F-13, F-14) C-08. Port security is compromised by the failure to provide 24/7 observation of the Port security camera system. (F-12, F-13) C-09. The proposed reduction of DHS funding will adversely affect future security enhancements at the Port. (F-17) Recommendations

July 18, 2008 — (ceo). The Grand Jury found that approximately 25% of the County jail population is

12 pages 21 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 21 findings

F01: The annual number of arrest-bookings countywide is increasing: • in 2006, a total of 29,979 adult males and females were booked, a 5.2% increase over the previous year [Ref-01] 2 Ventura County Detention Facilities • in 2007, a total of 31,893 adult males and females were booked, a 6.4% increase over the previous year [Ref-01]

F02: In 2007, the adult inmate populations in the two main County jail facilities were: • Main Jail had an average daily population of 851 inmates versus the approved capacity of 793. [Ref-01] • Todd Road had an average daily population of 846 inmates versus the approved capacity of 782. [Ref-01]

F03: Over the last five years (2003-2007), 1,171 inmate-on-inmate assaults (including mutual combat) occurred within County jail facilities which amounted to an increase of 22%. [Ref-01]

F04: The VCSD, BOS, and CEO are in discussion to identify funding sources for build-out of Todd Road. Four funding options are being considered with the least expensive option estimated to cost $100 million. A construction start date has not been determined.

F05: The East Valley Detention Center in Thousand Oaks re-opened in January 2008. The dormitory style facility was designed to house 35 minimum security adult male inmates. [Ref-01]

F06: The current costs to the County to house an adult inmate in jail facilities are: • Main Jail - $153.43 per day • Todd Road - $114.62 per day

F07: The California State Corrections Standards Authority (formerly the Board of Corrections) reimburses the County $77.17 per day for adult inmates who are sentenced and awaiting transfer to state prison.

F08: There are currently 21 counties in California under court ordered inmate population caps. To date, no court mandated cap has been established for the County of Ventura. [Ref-01]

F09: Undocumented foreign nationals constitute approximately 25% of the adult inmates in County jail facilities. [Ref-01]

F10: There are currently four ICE Agents assigned to the Ventura County jail system, including three who were added in 2007. [Ref-01]

F11: In 2006, 568 ICE detainers (holds) were placed on inmates; in 2007 there were 1,132 detainers, an increase of 99%. [Ref-01]

F12: Two VCSD Deputies are scheduled to attend a two-month ICE Agent Certification Course which will enable them to enforce federal immigration laws.

F13: Current VCSD practice requires all inmates, including undocumented foreign nationals, to serve their complete sentence in the County jail system prior to their release or transfer to ICE Agents for deportation. Ventura County Detention Facilities 3

F14: The County Probation Agency’s Work Furlough Program has a published capacity of 235 adult inmates.

F15: There are currently 140 inmates enrolled and housed in the Work Furlough’s 64 year-old Camarillo facility because of the dated condition of the facility. A decision to remodel or build a new facility is under study by the County Probation Agency and CEO’s office.

Related Recommendations (2)

R03: The County Probation Agency and the CEO should decide whether to remodel, expand, or rebuild the Work Furlough Program facility so that the maximum capacity of 235 inmates can be attained. (C-06)

R04: The BOS should secure funding for the remodel and/or rebuild of the County Probation’s Work Furlough Program facility. (C-06)

F16: Each inmate enrolled in the Work Furlough Program reimburses the County up to $62.00 per day.

F17: The Probation Agency’s Juvenile Justice Complex, detention and commitment components, was built to house 420 male and female youths. The current California state certified capacity is 250. In May of 2008 there were 205 youths residing at the facility.

F18: The Probation Agency’s Juvenile Justice Complex has partnered with the Boys and Girls Club of America in a unique and innovative approach to diversion for at risk youths.

F19: The American Heart Association recommends that all public service personnel have access to and receive training in the operation of the Automated External Defibrillator (AED), which is intended to administer definitive treatment for persons experiencing a ventricular fibrillation episode prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel.

F20: Of the twelve booking/holding facilities in the County, ten have an AED available in their police stations or jail facilities.

Related Recommendations (1)

R07: The cities of Oxnard and Santa Paula should procure and install an AED device near their police detention holding cells with personnel receiving training in use of the AED. (C-07) Responses Responses Required: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-04) Sheriff, County of Ventura (R-01, R-05, R-06) District Attorney, County of Ventura (R-05) City of Oxnard (R-07) City of Santa Paula (R-07) Ventura County Detention Facilities 5 Responses Requested: Probation Agency, County of Ventura (R-03) Responses Accepted: Corrections Standards Authority, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation References Ref-01 Ventura County Sheriff’s Department/Detention Services Division/Memorandum/State of the Jails – 2008 Attachments Att-01 2007-2008 Ventura County Grand Jury Inspection Form 6 Ventura County Detention Facilities Attachment-01 2007-2008 Ventura County Grand Jury Inspection Form (Derived from California State Grand Jurors Association Handbook) Ventura County Detention Facilities 7 (This page intentionally blank) 8 Ventura County Detention Facilities Ventura County Detention Facilities 9 10 Ventura County Detention Facilities Ventura County Detention Facilities 11 12 Ventura County Detention Facilities

F21: The cities of Oxnard and Santa Paula do not have an AED in their police stations. Conclusions C-01. County jail over-crowding contributes to increased inmate assaults, and costs associated with operating the facilities. (F-01 through F-06) C-02. If current jail population trends continue, the VCSD may be faced with a court imposed inmate population cap mandating early release of all inmates. (F-08) C-03. The rising number of inmates incarcerated in the County jail system, including undocumented foreign nationals, has increased operating costs. (F-02, F-06, F-09, F-11, F-13) C-04. The VCSD practice of limiting the early release of inmates results in the County incurring the total costs for detaining undocumented foreign nationals for the entire term of their incarceration. (F-13) C-05. The increase of three ICE Agents in 2007, assigned to the Ventura County jail system, reduces the time to identify criminal undocumented foreign nationals for deportation. (F-10, F-11) C-06. The County Probation Agency’s Work Furlough Program has the potential for housing 235 inmates if funding is available to upgrade and 4 Ventura County Detention Facilities staff current facilities. If this capacity is fully attained, overcrowding within the County jail system could be partially alleviated. (F-14 through F-16) C-07. Prisoner healthcare will be enhanced and potential liability will be mitigated if all detention facility staff within the County have access to, and receive training in the use of the AED device. (F-19 through F-21) Recommendations

July 18, 2008 — Ventura County Hall of Administration: Safety, Security, and Executive Protection

14 pages 38 findings 27 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 38 findings

F01: The east facing main entrance of the County Hall of Administration (HOA) has two entrances. One entrance consists of a manual pull glass door. The other entrance is an automatic glass sliding double door through which most of the traffic occurs. Next to the manual pull glass door is a decal warning sign that warns persons who enter that weapons, e.g., pistols or knives, are not allowed in the building pursuant to §171(b) of the California Penal Code (CPC).

F02: The north entrance consists of two glass manual pull doors that are unlocked during normal business hours. There is no weapon advisory decal affixed at this entrance. There is signage on the door advising the public to use the west facing main entrance.

F03: Located inside the main lobby of the HOA is an information kiosk staffed by a contract security guard during normal business hours. Hall of Administration: Safety, Security & Exec Prot

F04: The location of the kiosk does not allow the guards to have visual screening of persons entering and exiting from either entrance of the building.

F05: The kiosk was observed to be unattended on several occasions.

F06: Multiple observations were made of boxes and rolling carts being brought in and out of the HOA, via both entrances, without security overview.

F07: Ventura County Ordinance 4036 (effective July 1, 1993) regulates the use of County facilities. The ordinance does not address cell phone usage in public meetings in County buildings. Additionally, it does not regulate certain items that could be brought to a public meeting being held in a County building, e.g., amplified sound, food, drink, picket signs, or large posters. [Att-01]

F08: The manual glass entrance doors to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors (BOS) Chambers are located on the main floor of the HOA. There is a small decal affixed to the glass that reads cell phones and pagers are not permitted, and a free standing sign by the doors that prohibits food or drink.

F09: No security screening of individuals entering the chambers via the entrance foyer was conducted during observations of BOS public meetings.

F10: There is no designated person, acting in the capacity of Sergeant-at- Arms, present during BOS public meetings.

Related Recommendations (1)

R05: The BOS should request the Sheriff to assign a VCSD deputy to serve as a Sergeant-at-Arms for each public BOS meeting. (C-01, C-04)

F11: The dais where the Supervisors sit is not safeguarded with any protective ballistic shielding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R06: The dais where the Supervisors sit in BOS chambers should be modified to incorporate protective ballistic shielding. (C-01, C-04)

F12: There are no duress (panic) alarms where the Supervisors sit at the dais. Treasurer/Tax Collector/Public Guardian/Administrator

Related Recommendations (1)

R07: A duress (panic) alarm should be installed at the BOS Chairman’s position. (C-01, C-04) Treasurer/Tax Collector/Public Guardian/Administrator

F13: Offices of the Treasurer/Tax Collector/Public Guardian/Administrator (TTPG) are located in the northeast section of the main lobby of the HOA. There currently are forty-nine employees in this area.

F14: TTPG is responsible for its own security operations and planning in its designated office space and does not coordinate security planning or training with GSA, except for evacuation drills.

Related Recommendations (1)

R08: The TTPG should develop and disseminate detailed security plans for dealing with critical incidents for all TTPG employees; VCSD and GSA should be involved in the formation of these plans. These plans should be reviewed annually. (C-05, C-06)

F15: TTPG has no written in-house security plan or in-service training, other than for new employees that instructs them what to do during critical incidents, e.g., workplace violence, or an active shooter situation.

Related Recommendations (2)

R09: TTPG employees should receive in-service security training annually and regular updates. (C-05)

F16: A recently implemented department policy addresses cashier cash drawer limits and procedures to be followed in the event of a front counter robbery incident. This procedure has not been shared with the GSA or the VCSD. Hall of Administration: Safety, Security & Exec Protection 3

F17: Three walk-up counters are located at the offices of the TTPG: the first is located in the Treasury section and is a flat counter approximately 4.5 feet in height with two partitioned transaction sections. The second is a half-door approximately 3.5 feet in height with a transaction shelf for use by the Public Guardian/Administrator. The third is located in the Tax Collector section and is approximately 4.5 feet in height, with 5 individual partitioned transaction stations.

F18: A clear partial protective barrier was recently installed over the counters of the Treasurer and Tax Collector sections.

F19: Duress (panic) alarms are located at two of the main walk-up counters which are linked directly to VCSD. There is no duress (panic) alarm in the personal office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The TTPG administrator should install a duress (panic) alarm in his office. (C-01)

F20: The three entrances into the internal office space of the TTPG consist of waist-high, non-reinforced doors.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: The three entrance doors to the TTPG Department should be made more secure. (C-01) Clerk and Recorder

F21: TTPG offices employ an in-house security recording camera system. TTPG employees periodically view a six-image screen. This system is independent of GSA.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The TTPG should use the security resources of the GSA for video camera monitoring. (C-05)

F22: The TTPG conference room, located near an entrance door, serves as a cash count and balancing room for daily receipts. It is also used to inventory items retained in trust by the Public Guardian. This room is not monitored by a camera. Clerk and Recorder

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: A security camera should be installed inside the TTPG conference room to electronically monitor cash counting and property inventories. (C-01)

F23: Offices of the Clerk and Recorder are located in the northwest section of the main floor of the HOA. The staff of the Clerk and Recorder currently consists of fifty-five employees, most of who work on the main floor.

F24: Duress (panic) alarms are located at the front walk-up counter with two more at the front counter supervisors’ desks. The personal office of the Clerk and Recorder is also alarmed. These alarms are linked directly to the VCSD.

F25: Clerk and Recorder is responsible for security operations and planning. Security planning and training is not coordinated with GSA except for periodic workplace violence training arranged through the County Human Resources Department.

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: The Clerk and Recorder should coordinate security planning and operations with GSA. (C-05, C-06) Hall of Administration: Safety, Security & Exec Protection 7 Executive Offices

F26: Clerk and Recorder has an internal security plan for employees. Periodic in-house training on the plan addresses responses to critical incidents occurring within the office. Clerk and Recorder office has a designated emergency escape route should it be necessary to evacuate the workplace.

F27: The Clerk and Recorder has an in-house security recording camera system that is monitored by two designated managers within the office. This system is independent of GSA. Hall of Administration: Safety, Security & Exec Prot

Related Recommendations (1)

R17: The Clerk and Recorder should use the security resources of the GSA for video camera monitoring of their main floor offices. (C-05)

F28: The public counter of the Clerk and Recorder is used for monetary transactions. It is a flat open counter approximately 4.5 feet in height. In front of this main counter is a shelf at the 3 foot level. It contains no protective barrier, such as in the TTPG.

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: A protective barrier, such as was recently installed in the TTPG, should be installed at the main public walk-up service counter for the Office of the Clerk and Recorder. (C-01)

F29: There is no central cash count and balancing room, or other designated single location where the receipts are tallied. Individual employees count receipts at their desks which can be viewed by the public.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: The Clerk and Recorder should establish a central cash count/balance room out of public view. (C-01)

F30: When receipts are tallied, an employee carries the receipt bag across the main lobby to the Treasurer’s office. No security escort is used. Executive Offices

Related Recommendations (1)

R16: A security escort should be used when transporting daily receipts from the offices of the Clerk and Recorder to the Treasurer’s Office. (C-01, C-05)

F31: The fourth floor of the HOA contains many executive offices, including the County Executive Office (CEO) and two for the Board of Supervisors. Currently the public can access the fourth floor via the elevator or by stairs without security restriction.

Related Recommendations (1)

R19: The fourth floor of the HOA should have secured access. (C-01)

F32: A flat, waist-high, open counter area is located at the foyer/lobby entrance to the CEO’s office. There is a shoulder high entrance door to the CEO’s inner office areas. The entrance door has a magnetic locking device that requires a person wanting admittance to be “buzzed-in”. After several visits to this area the magnetic locking device was never found to be activated, thus leaving this door unlocked. This foyer/lobby area is not monitored by a camera.

Related Recommendations (2)

R20: The foyer/lobby to the County Executive Office (CEO) should be monitored by a security camera. (C-01)

R21: The entrance door to the interior office space of the CEO’s lobby should be locked during normal business hours. (C-01)

F33: There are no duress (panic) alarms located in the CEO’s office areas.

Related Recommendations (1)

R22: A duress (panic) alarm should be installed in the reception lobby of the CEO’s office. (C-01)

F34: There are no cameras monitoring the inner lobby area of the offices of individual Supervisors, nor are there any duress (panic) alarms in any Supervisor office. General Government Center Security

Related Recommendations (2)

R23: A security camera should be installed in the inner reception lobby of the BOS offices. (C-01)

R24: A duress (panic) alarm should be installed in each BOS office. (C-01) General Government Center Security

F35: There is no formalized notification system at any of the four major GC buildings to simultaneously alert all employees of a critical incident.

Related Recommendations (1)

R25: A centralized notification system should be implemented to simultaneously alert all employees of critical incidents in each building of the GC. (C-04 through C-06)

F36: Elected and appointed department heads have no single County governmental agency coordinating and directing their security policies.

Related Recommendations (2)

R27: All County employees working for a department headed by an appointed or elected official should receive the same security and awareness training. Specialized training should be provided by security professionals as designated and approved by the VCSD. (C-01, C-04 through C-06) Responses Responses Required: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-07, R-18 through R-27) Clerk and Recorder, County of Ventura (R-14 through R-18, R-26, R-27) Sheriff, County of Ventura (R-05 and R-27) Treasurer/Tax Collector/Public Guardian/Administrator, County of Ventura (R-08 through R-13, R-26, R-27) Responses Requested: General Services Agency, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-07, R-18 through R-27) Attachments Att-01 Ventura County Ordinance Number 4036 8 Hall of Administration: Safety, Security & Exec Prot Attachment-01 Ventura County Ordinance Number 4036 Hall of Administration: Safety, Security & Exec Protection 9 (This page intentionally blank) 10 Hall of Administration: Safety, Security & Exec Prot Hall of Administration: Safety, Security & Exec Protection 11 12 Hall of Administration: Safety, Security & Exec Prot Hall of Administration: Safety, Security & Exec Protection 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Hall of Administration: Safety, Security & Exec Prot

F37: A County Physical Security Council meets bi-monthly to discuss security related issues at all County facilities. The Council includes representatives from VCSD and GSA’s Risk Management and Human Resources Departments.

F38: The County’s Administrative Policy Manual delineates the BOS Operating Procedures which give the Chair the authority and responsibility to “preserve order and decorum” in public BOS meetings. This is consistent with the intent of the provisions of California Government Code §54957.9. Hall of Administration: Safety, Security & Exec Protection 5 Conclusions C-01. Potential security scenarios are preventable events. Ventura County has opted for less visible security systems for their governmental institutions with the goal of maintaining an “open campus” environment. Because of this factor it could not be determined that there is an appropriate level of security that is expected in an urban county. Enhanced and comprehensive security practices and procedures in Ventura County government could ensure that a continued safe environment at the GC is maintained and encouraged. (F-10, through F- 12, F-17 through F-19, F-27, F-28, F-31, F-34 through F-38) C-02. The weapon warning signage on the east side main entrance to the HOA is not easily read, because of the decal’s size, color, and placement location on the dark colored glass. (F-01) C-03. The main lobby kiosk in the HOA is primarily intended to be an information station, as indicated by the signage. The security guard’s attention is focused on providing information rather than visually scanning persons entering the building. (F-03 through F-06) C-04. Potential disruptions of governmental meetings could be mitigated by enacting or amending specific ordinance(s) (as opposed to policies) that enhance security and better regulate facility usage. (F-07 through F-12) C-05. Security planning should be comprehensive and consolidated to provide an effective operational interface and implementation. (F-14, F-25, F-35 through F-37) C-06. Lack of a centralized critical incident notification system throughout the GC does not ensure the safety of employees and the public. (F-35 through F-38) Recommendations Main Lobby/Board of Supervisors

July 18, 2008 — Ventura County Resource Management Agency: Customer Relations

16 pages 11 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F01: The RMA staff does not receive formal training in customer service or public relations.

F02: The customer relations program for the RMA consists of: • Mission Statement RMA: Customer Relations 1 • Web site • Public Opinion Forms [Att-01 through Att-03] • several Municipal advisory committees in the Planning Division

F03: Public Opinion Forms measuring customer satisfaction are used by all divisions with the exception of Weights and Measures. [Att-01 through Att-03]

F04: The Weights and Measures Division maintains its own method for receiving, logging, and tracking customer complaints.

F05: The Agency Director reviews monthly summaries of all Public Opinion Forms received.

F06: There is no performance standard related to customer service for any of the four divisions having public contact. Service-related complaints are resolved informally (generally over the telephone) by the Building Official, a Division Deputy Director, or a Program Manager.

F07: There are no RMA appeal processes for service complaints. The public’s only recourse is to appeal to the BOS or file a complaint with the Grand Jury.

F08: Public telephone customer complaints are not logged.

F09: RMA Deputy Directors and Program Managers are responsible for public opinion record keeping in their divisions.

F10: Public Opinion Forms are not pre-numbered or date stamped. [Att-01 through Att-03]

F11: The number of customers visiting each Division is not consistently tracked. Conclusions C-01. The RMA does not provide staff with customer relations training. (F-01) C-02. The RMA does not have a customer relations program. (F-02 through

July 18, 2008 — Ventura Port District: Delivery of Fire Services

20 pages 39 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 39 findings

F01: The VCFD staffs six fire stations located throughout the City. These stations were built to serve existing demographic needs at the time of construction. [Att-01]

F02: Fire Station 6, the last station built, was constructed in East Ventura in 1988. The City’s population in 1988 was approximately 90,000 and VCFD responded to 5,765 calls for service.

F03: In 2007, the City population was approximately 107,000. The VCFD responded to 11,227 calls for service, 72% were for medical assistance. [Att-03]

F04: The published total response time goal for the VCFD is five minutes, 90% of the time, to any point within the City. Fire Services: Ventura Port District 3

F05: The VCFD achieves the total response time goals for approximately 57% of emergency responses throughout the City.

F06: In 2005, VCFD published the Fire Master Plan which examined station placement and response times for all areas of the City.

F07: The National Fire Protection Association recommends a maximum allowable time of 90 seconds or less to receive calls and dispatch fire personnel. [Ref-03]

F08: The National Fire Protection Association recommends a maximum allowable time of 60 seconds or less to don equipment and leave the station. [Ref-02]

F09: The Harbor Area is served by Fire Station 2 located at 41 S. Seaward Avenue near Main Street, and is staffed by a single engine company and one unmanned reserve fire engine. This station is 3.48 miles from the most distant addresses in the Harbor Area. (Note: MapQuest lists a drive time of 6 minutes to these locations.)

F10: Fire Station 2 received 2,255 calls for service in 2007, making it one of the busiest stations in the City. The Fire Master Plan establishes 3000 annual calls as an upper limit for efficient handling of fire emergency incidents.

F11: According to VCFD management, emergency responses to the Harbor Area have been recorded as eight to eleven minutes. [Att-02]

F12: In 2007, the VCFD responded to 572 calls for service in the Harbor Area.

F13: VCFD Management states total response time goals are met on about 10% of calls for services into the Harbor Area.

F14: In early 2007, the VCFD instituted a “roving” fire engine, staffed by three firefighter/paramedics, to address extended response times within the Harbor Area and the rest of the City. The roving engine also provides coverage during fire department training events.

F15: The roving engine company is normally staffed Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and alternating Mondays and Fridays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. It is in the Harbor Area an average of 5% to 10% of the time.

F16: According to VCFD Management the roving engine has improved citywide response times. Ventura Harbor Patrol

F17: The Port District employs Harbor Patrol Officers (HPOs) whose primary duties are to enforce harbor ordinances and the State of California Boating and Waterways Code.

F18: There are nine budgeted HPO positions, including the Harbor Master, with two to three officers on duty daily.

F19: HPOs are on duty from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Fire Services: Ventura Port District

F20: There are no HPOs on duty from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. An HPO is “On- Call” during these hours. (Note: The Port District discontinued 24-hour coverage in 1991.)

F21: HPO’s primary responsibility is for Port District-owned properties and occasional boat patrols of the Ventura Keys. If requested by another agency, they respond to ocean emergencies up to three miles outside the Harbor including the Ventura City Pier.

F22: HPOs devote 20% to 40% of their time patrolling on water and the remainder to various land-based activities.

F23: VCFD and HPOs are dispatched simultaneously to fire and medical aid calls for service on Port District properties and adjacent areas.

F24: HPOs assist the VCFD from the Harbor Patrol Office and from land- based activities. When engaged in patrol duties on water, HPOs may not be able to respond in a timely manner and therefore may choose not to respond.

F25: According to Port District management, HPO response times are estimated to be three to four minutes when dispatched while on land, eight to ten minutes when dispatched from water patrol, and ten to twenty-one minutes when called to respond after hours.

F26: The Port District owns three patrol boats; one is equipped for firefighting.

F27: HPOs are not certified California State Firefighters but assist the VCFD by transporting firefighters to emergencies on water and by providing waterside access to fires on land. (Note: VCFD and the Port District have a formalized Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishing cooperative use of the fire boat.)

F28: HPOs are trained as Level-1 Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and provide non-paramedic, first responder assistance to Port District- owned properties only.

F29: According to VCFD records, HPOs assisted with 164 fire calls and medical aid in 2007. Ventura Port District Development Plan

F30: The Port District has plans to develop 23 acres of District-owned land within the Harbor.

F31: The Port District selected a developer in May of 2000 to plan and develop this acreage.

F32: In 2004, the City suggested a reworking of these initial development plans.

F33: In the fall of 2006, the developer agreed to provide $3.25 million for the construction of a fire station to serve the Harbor and adjacent areas as part of the Fire Master Plan. The $3.25 million is contingent upon final approval of development plans. Fire Services: Ventura Port District 5

F34: The Port District and the City have agreed upon District-owned parcel 19-A as the probable location for future Fire Station 7.

F35: Terms of an MOU are being negotiated between the City and the District as to how this parcel will be developed for use as a fire station. City of Ventura

F36: City management and the City Council have identified public safety as a top priority for all areas of the City.

F37: A local sales tax over-ride for public safety titled, “Gang Prevention, 911 Emergency/Public Safety Improvement,” (known as P-6) was intended to expand fire and police staffing. It did not receive the required 2/3 majority in the November 2006 election.

F38: Public safety improvements in 2007 used greater than expected property tax revenues. City management projects a decrease in budgeted sales tax revenues of $2.0 million as part of a projected $4.0 million budget deficit for fiscal year 2008-2009.

F39: In January of 2008, Ventura City Council adopted an ordinance for the recovery of costs associated with staffing the police 911 Emergency Call Center. City management stated that it intends to hire police and firefighters with the new revenue. Fire Services: Ventura Port District Conclusions C-01. The VCFD bases the efficient delivery of fire services on a five-minute response time for 90% of calls for service. (F-01, F-04 through F-06,

Additional Recommendations 7

Not linked to specific findings.

R01: The City should follow the Fire Master Plan recommendation to build Fire Station 7. (C-01 through C-04, C-06)

R02: The City should reallocate money in existing budgets or find alternate funding sources to build, equip and staff Fire Station 7 on Port District property. (C-01 through C-04, C-06)

R03: The VCFD should expand the hours of the roving engine company and position it in the Harbor Area for a majority of the hours and extend coverage to the weekends. (C-01 through C-04)

R04: The District should continue the use of HPOs to deliver EMT services in the Harbor Area until Fire Station 7 is built and staffed. (C-01 through C-05)

R05: The District should reinstate Harbor Patrol staffing to a 24-hour seven days-a-week basis to enhance response times during those hours not covered by the City’s roving engine. (C-01 through C-05) Fire Services: Ventura Port District 7

R06: The VCFD, with the Ventura County Fire Protection District, should review dispatch technology and policies to reduce total response times. (C-03)

R07: The VCFD should review procedures and practices for ways to reduce the time needed for firefighters to don equipment and respond. (C-03) Responses Responses Required: City Council, City of Ventura (R-01 through R-03, R-06, R-07) Board of Port Commissioners, Ventura Port District (R-04, R-05) References Ref-01 Ventura City Fire Department Fire Facility and Equipment Master Plan Ref-02 National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 Ref-03 National Fire Protection Association Standard 1221 Attachments Att-01 Map VCFD Fire Reporting Districts Att-02 VCFD Response Times Att-03 Graph Call History, Population 8 Fire Services: Ventura Port District Attachment-01 Ventura City Fire Department Fire Reporting Districts Fire Services: Ventura Port District 9 (This page intentionally blank) 10 Fire Services: Ventura Port District Fire Services: Ventura Port District 11 (This page intentionally blank) 12 Fire Services: Ventura Port District Attachment-02 Ventura City Fire Department Fire Response Times Fire Services: Ventura Port District 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Fire Services: Ventura Port District Fire Services: Ventura Port District 15 (This page intentionally blank) 16 Fire Services: Ventura Port District Attachment–03 Chart VCFD Total Calls Ventura City Population Number of Firefighters Fire Services: Ventura Port District 17 (This page intentionally blank) 18 Fire Services: Ventura Port District VVeennttuurraa CCoouunnttyy 22000077 –– 22000088 GGrraanndd JJuurryy FFiinnaall RReeppoorrtt FFiirree SSeerrvviicceess:: VVeennttuurraa PPoorrtt DDiissttrriicctt 1199 (This page intentionally blank) 20 Fire Services: Ventura Port District

June 30, 2008 — Member Of:*

6 pages 17 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 17 findings

F01: District management states the Port is a Tier-3 port operating in a region subject to a Tier 1 security risk. [Agree]

F02: The District employs a State of California certified contract security service whose primary responsibility is main gate access to the Port. [Agree] The District employs eight Wharfingers who generally work 10-hour shifts.

F03: At least one Wharfinger is required to be on duty each shift; these shifts are round- the-clock 7 days a week. [Agree]

F04: District management states Wharfinger perform thirty-one essential functions; eleven of these relate directly to the security and safety of the Port. [Concur in Part] The District provided a copy of the most current Job Description for the position of Wharfinger to the Grand Jury. The Job Description has 31 essential BOARD OF HARBOR functions. The Grand Jury made the finding that eleven of these relate directly to the COMMISSIONERS security and safety of the Port. The term "security" has different meanings and Jess Herrera President applications. Security such as checking doors to see if they are locked is different from Nao Takasugi security under the applicable DHS / USCG regulations. The Grand Jury report does not Vice President differentiate among the differences. The Executive Director advised the Grand Jury that Jesse J. Ramirez the job function provided was not consistent with the District's Port Security Plan. The Secretary District is in the process of up-dating the Wharfinger's Job Description in association Raymond E. Fosse Harbor Commissioner with our Labor / Management process. RECEIVED Michael A. Plisky Harbor Commissioner JUL - 7 2008 PORT MANAGEMENT Executive Director

F05: Wharfingers are designated port security officers who patrol District properties on foot, in a vehicle, and when required, in a patrol boat. [Disagree] In accordance with 33 CFR, the Oxnard Harbor District has one designated Facility Security Officer (Executive Director) and two Alternate Facility Security Officers (Deputy Executive Directors). The Wharfingers are employees of the District with security duties and responsibilities. One of the security responsibilities requires the Wharfingers to make rounds. The District provides the Wharfingers with a vehicle to make these rounds. The District does not have a patrol boat. The District has two vessels. One is used for the maintenance personnel to inspect Wharves of the Oxnard Harbor District, and the other was purchased as part of the State of California's Security Grant Program as part of the District's Incident Command System and Capabilities. Wharfingers wear distinctive uniforms and shoulder patches and a metal

F06: badge stamped Wharfinger/Oxnard Harbor District. [Concur in Part] The District provides uniforms to District employees in accordance with a MOU with the SEIU. While metal badges have been provided to the Wharfingers, the District is currently reviewing the California statutes regarding the use of badges associated with non-law enforcement functions. The use of the metal badge may be misconstrued as a person with law enforcement authority. At the present time, the badges issued to District employees will have to be redesign to ensure they are not misleading to the public. F- 07 Wharfingers are unarmed. [Agree]

F07: Wharfingers are unarmed. [Agree]

Page 2

F08: The Proprietary Security Services Act in Chapter 11.4 of Division 3 of the California Business and Professional Code (§§7574 – 7574.4) requires private security officers to register with the California Department of Consumer Affairs. [Agree] District Wharfingers are not required to comply with the Proprietary

F09: Security Services Act as a pre-condition of employment, or are they required to have a California Security Certificate, commonly known as a Guard Card. [Agree] The District has a contract for security access control. The security personnel engaged by contract comply with the Proprietary Security Services. The California Business and Professional Code sections are not applicable to the District's Wharfingers.

F10: Once employed, Wharfingers are not required to receive training by the District to obtain their Guard Card. [Agree]. Wharfingers are not required to have Guard Cards as part of their employment. The California Business and Professional Code sections are not applicable to the Wharfingers. Executive Director The District has an administrative manual for all employees; it does not have

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: Future employment requirements of Wharfingers should include the possessions of a California Security Certificate (Guard Card). [Disagree] The California Security Certificate (Guard Card) is not applicable to the Wharfingers. All gate security guards have Guard Cards.

F11: a specific Operations Manual for Wharfingers. [Agree] The District does not have an Operations Manual for the Wharfingers. We have relied on-the-job training with operating procedures passed down by the Wharfingers. The District intends to prepare an Operations Manual.

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The District should develop a Field Operations Manual for Wharfingers. [Agree] The District is in the process of implementing this recommendation.

F12: The District has a twenty-four hour security camera and recording system. [Agree]

F13: According to District management there are periods when the camera is not observed by a District employee. [Agree] As discussed by the Executive Director with the Grand Jury, an employee sitting in front of a CCTV monitoring system on a twenty- four hour basis is not a good security practice. The District's CCTV monitoring system will be linked to an alarm platform that will provide information to the District when an incident occurs. The District is currently in the process of upgrading the CCTV to include this monitoring capability. Wharfingers carry a portable two-way radio that is used for internal

Related Recommendations (1)

R06: The District should provide 24-hour uninterrupted observations of the port security camera system. [Disagree] This is not a proper method of monitoring CCTV systems. The District is in the process of linking the CCTV to a platform that will provide 24-hour uninterrupted notifications to appropriate port security and operations personnel.

F14: communication and ship traffic. The radios are not programmed to directly communicate with local public safety responders. When a public safety response, i.e., police, fire is required at District facilities the Wharfinger calls 911 using the nearest telephone or cell phone. [Agree]

Related Recommendations (2)

R04: Wharfingers' radio should provide two-way communications to primary public safety agencies. [Agree] Communications with law enforcement is the responsibility of public safety agencies to regulate and control. The District does not have access to these radio bands.

R05: The District should develop backup system of communication with responding public safety agencies. Additional methods of communication may include devices such as a dedicated telephone circuit, commonly known as a "ring down phone". [Concur in Part] The District has engaged the Center for Asymmetric Warfare to investigate the development of a Joint Port Operations / Security Center to ensure improved communications between federal, state, and local agencies.

F15: Over the past four years, the District has received approximately $ 1.3 million in DHS grants to strengthen port security. [Agree] The District has recently received another $ 2.9 million.

Related Recommendations (1)

R07: The District should continue to pursue strengthening and upgrading Port security without regard to funding sources. [Concur in Part] The District does continue to pursue upgrades to port security; however, it is essential that the District utilize a "cost-benefit" analysis to ensure appropriate use of funds and funding sources. Executive Director 1.7 Please contact me directly, if you have any further questions regarding the District's response to your findings, conclusions and recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Anthony J. Taormina Executive Director Oxnard Harbor District Each Commissioner cc: Honorable Colleen Toy White, Presiding Judge Superior Court of California, Ventura County Hall of Justice, # 2120 800 S. Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 . 15 1

F16: Ports in the United State are eligible to apply for DHS port security grants which total $ 400 million. The State of California has $ 40 million available for port security grants state-wide. The District intends to apply for these grants. [Agree] The District has applied for Proposition 1 B funding and has applied for the DHS Round 7 B and 8. In December 2007, the White House Office of Management and Budget

Related Recommendations (1)

F17: proposed a nationwide $ 1.4 billion reduction for the fiscal 2009 DHS grants, some of which specifically target port security. [Unknown] Executive Director Conclusions C-01 A Wharfinger position, as utilized by the District, is a multifaceted position because of the variety of assigned duties to be performed. [Agree with the Comments

May 28, 2008 — Ventura County Fire Protection District BOB Roper County Fire Chief*

2 pages 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R03: The Fire District has instituted changes to its annual sensitive item inventory to include a physical inventory of all items defined as sensitive items by the Fire District. This inventory procedure shall be completed by the end of October each year and signed off by the respective manager.

R04: The Fire District is currently working with the Auditor-Controller's Office to perform a sensitive item inventory on department computer equipment. The department is updating its definition of sensitive items and implementing new policies and procedures for tracking sensitive items and doing an annual physical inventory of them. Once completed, the 2007 inventory shall be reconciled to reflect the results.

R05: Concur; this shall be accomplished per R-04.

R06: The Fire District will continue to work with the Auditor-Controller's Office to bolster our internal inventory audit procedures within the resources available. In conclusion, the Fire District agrees that it can make improvements to its current sensitive inventory controls and will do so. I appreciate the Grand Jury's work. The Fire District is committed to finishing its work with the District Committed to Excellence . . . Delivered with Pride Providing protection and preservation of life, property and environment to: The Cities of Camarillo, Moorpark, Ojai, Port Hueneme. Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and the unincorporated areas of Ventura County. Attorney's Office and Auditor-Controller so further safeguards can be put into place. It should be noted that the 2004-05 Grand Jury report dealt with purchasing procedures at our warehouse due to a citizen complaint. The 2004-05 Grand Jury report found no wrong doing on behalf of the Fire District and stated in their report: "This evaluation led the Grand Jury to conclude that, while a determined thief can almost always find a way to steal, sufficient controls are in place to ensure that the risk of equipment theft and misuse is effectively managed by VCFPD staff and management." The findings of the 2004-05 Grand Jury Report #12 did not request a response of the Fire District. (See attached copy of 2004-05 Report and Index Summary Sheet). I hope that this information answers the Grand Jury's findings, and I feel confident that these changes will help alleviate past inventory deficiencies. Sincerely, BOB ROPER Fire Chief CEO C: Board of Directors

May 20, 2008 — Ventura County Hall of Administration: Safety, Security, and Executive Protection*

6 pages 9 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: exits the door and then for less than five seconds before he reaches the Treasurer's counter; (5) The Clerk and Recorder staff person makes one trip daily with cash receipts at random times; and (6) The cost for a few seconds of additional security in addition to what GSA Security and the Treasurer's office already provide would be prohibitive.

F23: "Offices of the Clerk and Recorder are located in the northwest section of the main floor of the HOA. The staff of the Clerk and Recorder currently consists of 55 employees, most of whom work on the main floor." We agree partially. Public offices of the Clerk and Recorder are located in the northwest section of the main floor of the Hall of Administration. Most of the Clerk and Recorder staff do work on the main floor. We respectfully disagree that the staff of the Clerk and Recorder currently consists of 55 employees. The County Clerk and Recorder staff currently consists of 59 regular employees: 43 in the Clerk and Recorder's Office and 16 in the Elections Division.

F24: "Duress (panic alarms) are located at the front walk-up counter with two more at the front counter supervisor's desks. The personal office of the Clerk and Recorder is also alarmed. These alarms are linked directly to the VCSD." - . . . Slerk and Recorder Elections Phone: (805) 654-2290 Fax. (805) 654-2392 Phone: (805) 654-2781 Fax: (805) 648-9200 Hall of Administration, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 http://recorder.countyofventura.org/venctrk.htm "REGISTER TO VOTE - THEN VOTE" Ex. We agree partially. A total of seven panic alarms are installed in the Clerk and Recorder's Office, including in the offices of the elected County Clerk and Recorder and the Clerk and Recorder Operations Manager. We respectfully disagree that these panic alarms are linked directly to the Ventura County Sheriff's Department. The panic alarms are linked directly to GSA Security. However, on the rare occasion that we have activated a panic alarm in the past, Ventura County Sheriff's deputies responded in under 90 seconds.

F25: "Clerk and Recorder is responsible for security operations and planning. Security planning and training is not coordinated with GSA except for periodic workplace violence training arranged through the County Human Resources Department." We agree partially. The County Clerk and Recorder (along with GSA Security) is responsible for security operations and planning. All County Clerk and Recorder staff do attend mandatory Workplace Security Training every two years. We respectfully disagree that security planning and training is not coordinated with GSA. GSA Security has provided, as needed, specialized planning and training to Clerk and Recorder staff regarding planned demonstrations by outside groups at the Clerk and Recorder's Office. We request specialized security resources and/or training from GSA Security and the Ventura County Sheriff's Department if and when we identify a need. Further, all of our video signals from our seven cameras in our main floor offices are transmitted directly to GSA Security on a 24/7 basis. GSA Security monitors the signals and produces a digital back-up.

F26: "Clerk and Recorder has an internal security plan for employees. Periodic in-house training on the plan addresses responses to critical incidents occurring within the office. Clerk and Recorder office has a designated emergency escape route should it be necessary to evacuate the workplace." We agree wholly.

Related Recommendations (1)

R26: "County Departments headed by an elected official, such as the TTPG and the Clerk and Recorder, should have a representative attend the bi-monthly County Physical Security Council meetings. (C-04 and C-05)" We will obtain the schedule for the County Physical Security Council meetings and implement immediately by sending a County Clerk and Recorder representative to these meetings.

F27: "The Clerk and Recorder has an in-house security recording camera system that is monitored by two designated managers within the office. This system is independent of GSA." We agree partially. Two Clerk and Recorder senior managers do monitor the security camera system. We respectfully disagree that the security recording camera system is independent of GSA. Although the cameras are installed in the Clerk and Recorder's Office, all of our video signals from the seven cameras in our main floor offices are transmitted directly to GSA Security on a 24/7 basis. GSA Security monitors the signals and produces a digital back-up.

Related Recommendations (1)

R27: "All County employees working for a department headed by an appointed or elected official should receive the same security and awareness training. Specialized training should be provided by security professionals as designated and approved by VCSD. (C-01, C-04 through C-06)" We have previously implemented. All County Clerk and Recorder staff attend mandatory Workplace Security Training every two years. GSA Security has provided, as needed, specialized training to Clerk and Recorder staff regarding planned demonstrations by outside groups at the Clerk and Recorder's Office. We request specialized security resources and/or training from GSA Security and the Ventura County Sheriff's Department if and when we identify a need. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this report. Please contact me at 654-2266, or Jim Becker at 654-2293, if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you. c: Marty Robinson, CEO Paul Derse, CEO Dorothea Forde, CEO Rosalind Harris, GSA

F28: "The public counter of the Clerk and Recorder is used for monetary transactions. It is a flat, open counter approximately 4.5 feet in height. In front of this main counter is a shelf at the 3 foot level. It contains no protective barrier, such as in the TTPG." We wholly agree. No protective barrier is utilized for the following reasons: (1) A protective barrier is not reasonable due to sufficient security measures already being in place at the public walk-up service counter (i.e., seven panic alarms connected directly to GSA Security, seven cameras installed in the Clerk and Recorder's Office monitored by two Clerk and Recorder senior management staff and by GSA Security, and the location of the HOA Security Kiosk just outside our public lobby entrance; (2) Cash drawers are mounted on the bottom of the work surfaces away from public access; (3) It is our belief that a protective barrier could create a false sense of security for staff (the protective barrier can still be scaled by an irate customer) and could actually contribute to a reduced security awareness on the part of staff; and (4) We have no past experience with violent customers that would warrant installation of a protective barrier.

F29: "There is no central cash count and balancing room, or other designated single location where the receipts are tallied. Individual employees count receipts at their desks which can be viewed by the public." We agree partially. Individual counter clerks do initially count receipts from their cash drawers after 4 p.m. (earlier with rare exception) at their desks. However, the public lobby door is closed and locked daily at 4 p.m. If any customers at all would be remaining in the public lobby after 4 p.m., it would be very few. The majority of receipts are in the form of checks or escrow account payments involving no actual exchange of cash. In addition, five of our seven cameras monitor the public lobby/entrance and seven panic alarms are available to staff in the office. All cameras and panic alarms are monitored by GSA Security. We respectfully disagree that there is no central cash count and balancing room or other designated single location where the receipts are tallied. The office safe and central fiscal section (including where the final receipt reconciliation process occurs) is in a separate area that cannot be viewed from the public lobby and is outside of public view.

F30: "When receipts are tallied, an employee carries the receipt bag across the main lobby to the Treasurer's office. No security escort is used." We agree wholly. No security escort is utilized for the following reasons: (1) The distance from the Clerk and Recorder's office door to the Treasurer's counter is only approximately 10 steps; (2) This area is in direct view of the security guard stationed in the HOA Security Kiosk a few feet further away; (3) Cameras located in the Treasurer's office monitor transactions at the Treasurer's public counter; (4) The Clerk and Recorder staff person who transports the daily receipts is not visible until he actually 1. exits the door and then for less than five seconds before he reaches the Treasurer's counter; (5) The Clerk and Recorder staff person makes one trip daily with cash receipts at random times; and (6) The cost for a few seconds of additional security in addition to what GSA Security and the Treasurer's office already provide would be prohibitive. Recommendations

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R14: "A protective barrier, such as was recently installed in the TTPG, should be installed at the main public walk-up service counter for the office of the Clerk and Recorder. (C-01)" We respectfully will not implement because this recommendation is not warranted or reasonable for the following reasons: (1) A protective barrier is not reasonable due to sufficient security measures already being in place at the public walk-up service counter (i.e., seven panic alarms connected directly to GSA Security, seven cameras installed in the Clerk and Recorder's Office monitored by two Clerk and Recorder senior management staff and by GSA Security, and the location of the HOA Security Kiosk just outside our public lobby entrance; (2) Cash drawers are mounted on the bottom of the work surfaces away from public access; (3) It is our belief that a protective barrier would create a false sense of security for staff (the protective barrier can still be scaled by an irate customer) and could actually contribute to a reduced security alertness on the part of staff; and (4) We have no past experience with violent customers that would warrant installation of a protective barrier.

R15: "The Clerk and Recorder should establish a central cash count and balance room out of public view. (C-01)" We respectfully will not implement because this recommendation is not warranted or reasonable for the following reasons: (1) Although individual counter clerks initially count receipts from their cash drawers after 4 p.m. (earlier with rare exception) at their desks, the public lobby door is closed and locked daily at 4 p.m. If any customers at all would be remaining in the public lobby after 4 p.m., it would be very few; (2) The majority of receipts are in the form of checks or escrow account payments involving no actual exchange of cash; (3) Five of our seven cameras monitor the public lobby/entrance and seven panic alarms are available to staff in the office; (4) All cameras and panic alarms are monitored by GSA Security; (5) A central cash count and balancing room (including the office safe and central fiscal section) already exists in a separate area that cannot be viewed from the public lobby and is outside of public view; and (5) Space constraints and efficient workload flow do not allow all the individual counter clerks to initially count receipts from their cash drawers in this very confined fiscal area.

R16: "A security escort should be used when transporting daily receipts from the offices of the Clerk and Recorder to the Treasurer's office. (C-01 and C-05)" We respectfully will not implement because this recommendation is not warranted or reasonable for the following reasons: (1) The distance from the Clerk and Recorder's office door to the Treasurer's counter is only approximately 10 steps; (2) This area is in direct view of the security guard stationed in the HOA Security Kiosk a few feet further away; (3) Cameras located in the Treasurer's office monitor transactions at the Treasurer's public counter; (4) The Clerk and Recorder staff person who transports the daily receipts is not visible until he actually exits the door and then for less than five seconds before he reaches the Treasurer's counter; (5) The Clerk and Recorder staff person makes one trip daily with cash receipts at random times; and (6) The cost for a few seconds of additional security in addition to what GSA Security and the Treasurer's office already provide would be prohibitive.

R17: "The Clerk and Recorder should use the security resources of the GSA for video camera monitoring of their main floor offices. (C-05)" We have previously implemented. All of our video signals from the seven cameras in our main floor offices are transmitted directly to GSA Security on a 24/7 basis. GSA Security monitors the signals and produces a digital back-up. "The Clerk and Recorder should coordinate security planning and

R18: operations with GSA. (G-05 and C-06)" We have previously implemented. All County Clerk and Recorder staff attend mandatory Workplace Security Training every two years. We have coordinated security planning and operations with GSA Security on multiple occasions related to planned demonstrations by outside groups at the Clerk and Recorder's Office. We request specialized security resources and/or training from GSA Security and the Ventura County Sheriff's Department if and when we identify a need. The Clerk and Recorder's Office also has seven panic alarms installed that transmit signals to GSA Security. On the rare occasion that we have activated a panic alarm in the past, Ventura County Sheriff's deputies responded in under 90 seconds. Further, all of our video signals from the seven cameras in our main floor offices are transmitted directly to GSA Security on a 24/7 basis. GSA Security monitors the signals and produces a digital back-up.

February 21, 2008 — 9-1-1 Fees for City of Ventura “. . . in the reasonable judgment of the City Council . . .” (City of Ventura

6 pages 33 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 33 findings

F01: The Belknap 2003 Study stated: Looking at police and fire together, it is apparent that spending and staffing levels are somewhat below the level observed in comparison cities. [Ref-01]

F02: The Belknap 2003 Study further stated: Projections indicate that police and fire costs for baseline (existing) service levels will outstrip expected General Fund growth. The above factor will force significant reductions in other General Fund services. [Ref-01]

F03: The Belknap 2003 Study was updated in 2007 and reported increased Fire Department expenditures per 1,000 residents. The City had increased its percent of peer city expenditures from 80.5% to 93.2% of average. [Ref-01, Ref-02]

F04: The Belknap 2007 Study also reported increased Ventura City Police Department (VCPD) expenditures per 1,000 residents. The City had increased its percent of peer city expenditures from 85.6% to 89.9% of average. [Ref-02]

F05: VCPD FY2005-2006 expenditures per 1,000 residents exceeded that of Oxnard, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks police Departments. [Ref-02]

F06: On November 5, 2007, VCC directed staff to provide recommendations to generate additional revenues for meeting a goal of adding public- safety staffing to improve emergency response. [Ref-03]

F07: Revenue recommendation options included a parcel tax assessment, a real estate transfer tax, and a transient occupancy tax increase. All tax increases require voter approval. [Ref-03]

F08: VCC Agenda Item 9 dated December 10, 2007 states: A ballot measure for a local quarter cent sales tax went to Ventura Voters in November 2006 to add 14 additional police officers and 9 firefighter/paramedics. This fell short of the needed two-thirds vote for a special tax, with 62% voting yes. [Ref-03]

F09: The State of California 9-1-1 tax currently included on telephone bills is for capital equipment; the City’s fee is for operations as well as capital equipment. The City does not currently receive 9-1-1 funds from the State of California.

F10: The Ventura City Manager presented revenue recommendation options to the VCC in December 2007. The VCC chose to pursue a 9-1-1 fee.

F11: The following chart is a comparison of the City’s revenue sources and comparable statewide averages before the Fee was enacted. [Ref-02] Belknap 2007 Study Update Revenue Statewide Averages City of Ventura Taxes 32.2% 40.86% Service Charges 38.5% 30.93% Financing Sources 5.6% 10.97% Intergovernmental Agencies 11.8% 8.07% Other 11.9% 9.17% TOTAL 100% 100%

F12: In February of 2008, VCC adopted a Fee ordinance providing for recovery of costs associated with the ECC.

F13: This Fee ordinance had no provision to annually allow phone subscribers to change their pay option.

F14: Negative public reaction to the proposed 9-1-1 fee was expressed at VCC meetings as well as reported in newspaper articles.

F15: Options for paying the fee are $1.49 per month per non-Lifeline phone or $17.88 for each 9-1-1 call after a free first call. [Ref-05]

F16: An estimate of 28,000 Lifeline (discounted telephone service available to eligible low-income residential subscribers) was used in the formula to calculate the $1.49 fee. [Ref-05]

F17: An estimate of 158,000 phone lines was used in the formula to calculate the $1.49 fee. [Ref-05]

F18: The monthly fee was calculated by utilizing the FY2007-2008 budgeted cost of $3,315,186 to provide police, firefighters/paramedics, medical call answering, and dispatching services to the ECC: • divide that amount by the estimated number of applicable, non- Lifeline subscribers (158,000) within the City • that amount was then multiplied by an estimated recovery rate of 85%. [Ref-05]

F19: The 85% recovery rate multiplier used to calculate the $1.49 fee is an estimate of the percentage of total ECC costs that would be recovered if fees for all 158,000 lines were paid on a monthly basis. [Ref-05]

F20: The 85% recovery rate multiplier is an arbitrary factor which can be changed by resolution of the VCC.

F21: More than 27,000 phone numbers were registered for the per-call option by the May 6, 2008 deadline. [Ref-08]

F22: “The amount of the Fee shall be established from time to time by Resolution of the City Council.” “The Resolution shall not establish the Fee at a rate higher than that which, in the reasonable judgment of the City Council, is necessary to fund anticipated Eligible Costs.” [Ref-05]

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The VCC should modify the Fee Ordinance to restrict fee increases to no more than the change in the Consumer Price Index. (C-01, C-02)

F23: The Technical Amendments to the Fee Ordinance state: The Service Fee imposed by the provisions of this Chapter is intended solely to provide revenue for defined eligible costs of service. The City Treasurer shall deposit all revenues collected pursuant to this Chapter into the 911 Communications System fund established by Section 4.225.080. [Ref-07]

F24: The Fee Ordinance allows fees to be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index. [Ref-05]

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The VCC should modify the Fee Ordinance to restrict fee increases to no more than the change in the Consumer Price Index. (C-01, C-02)

F25: Telephone service providers are allowed to retain up to 1/8 of one- percent of collected fees from each subscriber. [Ref-05]

F26: When interviewed, VCC members and staff did not know how new phone subscribers would be notified of the Fee or if Fee Plans would be made available.

F27: Subsequent to VCC members and staff interviews, and after incorporation of Technical Amendments to the Fee Ordinance, enrolled phone subscribers will have 14 days annually from May 1 to May 15 to change their fee plan. Subscribers must notify the City Treasurer in writing on a form provided by the City. [Ref-07]

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The VCC should notify phone subscribers annually via U.S. Mail of their right to change payment options. (C-04, C-06)

F28: New subscribers, and current subscribers adding a phone line or changing providers, have 30 days to enroll in the per-call alternative. Subscribers must notify the City Treasurer in writing on a form provided by the City. [Ref-07]

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The VCC should notify all subscribers via U.S. Mail, who are adding a phone line or changing phone providers, of their right to choose an alternative payment option. (C-04, C-06)

F29: A $2.0 million portion of the City’s FY2007-2008 projected $4.3 million deficit is attributed to a decrease in projected sales tax. [Ref-06]

F30: VCC Agenda Item 9, dated December 10, 2007 states that this year, (FY2007-2008) $1.2 million in property tax growth (due to rising home prices and increased sales) was earmarked to add six police officers and three firefighters with the goal of gradually finding additional funding in future years to meet the public safety staffing shortage. [Ref-03]

F31: Subsequent to approval of the May 12, 2008 amended Fee Ordinance, the City authorized the hiring of six additional police officers and three additional firefighters, contingent upon the demonstration over several months that revenues are sufficient to cover costs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R04: The VCC should refrain from hiring additional police and firefighters until it is demonstrated that Fee revenue is adequate and sustainable. (C-01, C-03, C-05) Responses Responses Required: City Council, City of Ventura (R-01 through R-04) Responses Requested: City Manager, City of Ventura (R-01 through R-04) References Ref-01 Belknap 2003 Study, “Funding for Public Safety, Streets & Parks,” September 2003 Ref-02 Belknap 2007 Study Update, “Update of 2003 Peer City Comparison,” June 5, 2007 Ref-03 Agenda Item 9, Ventura Council Action date: December 10, 2007 Ref-04 Administrative Report “Public Safety Funding Mechanisms,” dated December 4, 2007 Ref-05 Administrative Report “Emergency Communications System Service Fee Resolution,” dated February 21, 2008 Ref-06 Administrative Report “ FY2008-2009 PROPOSED BUDGET – NEXT STEPS,” dated May 1, 2008 Ref-07 City Attorney Legal Report, “Technical Amendments to 911 Fee Ordinance,” May 12, 2008 Ref-08 Ventura Star Newspaper, “Ventura won’t extend time to opt out of 911 fee,” May 14, 2008

F32: The City Administrative Report dated May 1, 2008 presented a package of changes that would close the FY2008-2009 projected $4.3 million deficit. [Ref-06]

F33: Effective October 1, 2008, the VCPD will receive a negotiated pay increase up to 12% with an annual estimated cost of $1.2 million. Conclusions C-01. The $1.49 monthly fee charged to subscribers is arbitrary. It is based on estimates unrelated to the recovery of anticipated $3.3 million in the ECC operating costs. The estimates used to calculate the Fee can be changed “. . . from time to time by Resolution of the City Council.” [Ref- 05] (F-13, F-17 through F-22, F-24) C-02. The primary purpose for implementing the Fee is the recovery of the ECC costs. The current $1.49 monthly fee can be substantially increased to provide full funding of all eligible costs. The VCC may increase the Fee as “. . . necessary to fund anticipated Eligible Costs.” [Ref-05] (F- 13, F-18, F-22 through F-24) C-03. Fee revenues are intended to add police and firefighters rather than reducing the FY2008-2009 $4.3 million estimated deficit. (F-23, F-30,

February 12, 2008 — Ventura County Middle Schools Safety and Welfare

18 pages 45 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 45 findings

F01: It was reported that 76% of the Schools were free of hazardous materials. Twenty-four percent reported having some hazardous materials (e.g., paints, asbestos, and chemicals); however, these were appropriately stored and were, “. . . encapsulated and were non- friable.”

F02: The Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools issues air quality alerts to all Ventura County School Districts. Schools reduce physical activities and outdoor exposure of students and staff during these alerts. Question 2: Is your school in full compliance with all fire codes? How often is your school inspected and when was the last inspection?

F03: All Schools reported that they are in compliance with fire codes.

F04: All Schools are inspected annually by a Ventura County Fire Marshall. Many Schools reported additional unscheduled local Fire Department inspections. Ventura County Schools Question 3: Is your school campus secured with fencing and gates?

F05: Seventy-six percent of schools are secured with fencing and gates; the remainders have partial perimeter fencing. Question 4: What measures are taken to limit and control points of entry?

F06: Schools with full perimeter fencing have locked gates for outside entry during the school day. Schools with partial perimeter fencing have assigned Campus Supervisors to control all entry points. Signage at Schools directs all visitors to the front office. Question 5: Are your school buildings earthquake safe?

F07: All Schools are in compliance with Title 5, California Code of Regulations, which requires “Educational facilities planned by school districts shall be designed to meet federal, state, and local statutory requirements for structure, fire, and public safety.” [Ref-03] Question 6: Does each classroom have a telephone with outside line access?

F08: Ninety-two percent of classrooms have telephones with outside line access. Question 7: Is all appropriate campus maintenance being performed?

F09: All Schools reported that campus maintenance is being performed appropriately by their respective District Facilities and Maintenance Departments. Question 8: Do the doors in your school lock from the inside?

F10: Forty-four percent of Schools have classroom doors that lock from the inside.

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: All permanent and temporary classrooms should have doors that lock from the inside. (C-05)

F11: Fifty-six percent of Schools report that some of their classrooms do not have doors that lock from the inside.

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: All permanent and temporary classrooms should have doors that lock from the inside. (C-05)

F12: None of the portable classrooms have doors that lock from the inside. Question 9: Does your school have an updated School Safety and Crisis Response Plan that is familiar to staff and students and is practiced regularly? When was the last update?

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: All permanent and temporary classrooms should have doors that lock from the inside. (C-05)

F13: All Schools have updated comprehensive School Safety Plans. Drills are practiced regularly and results are recorded, filed, and discussed by staff to ensure expected results were achieved.

F14: Most schools completed updates of their safety plans during the fourth quarter of 2007; other Schools updated plans during the first quarter of 2008. Ventura County Schools 3 Question 10: Does your school have a comprehensive Crisis Containment Plan (lock-down)?

F15: All Schools have a Crisis Containment Plan that is part of their comprehensive School Safety Plan. Lock-down drills are performed several times annually and results are recorded, filed, and discussed by staff to ensure expected results were achieved. Question 11: Does your school have in-service training for staff on safety issues and ongoing drills and practice? How often?

F16: Ninety-six percent of Schools have annual in-service training for staff on safety issues as directed by their School Safety Plans.

F17: All Schools conduct safety drills several times annually. Question 12: Are staff members notified about potentially violent or troubled students? How?

F18: All schools notify staff regarding potentially violent/troubled students. Staff notification may be done by: • e-mail • staff meetings/conferences • personal briefings • memoranda, including lists of suspended students • Individualized Education Plan (IEP) • Student Study Team (SST) meetings Question 13: Has your school prepared an “Emergency” parent notification plan for major emergency events (i.e., earthquakes, fire, violent intrusions, etc.)? Is it telephone, e-mail, public media, or other? Please specify.

F19: All Schools have emergency parent notification plans in place. Notification options include automated telephone message systems (Connect-Ed, Parent-Connect, All Call Voice Out), and some Schools may also use e-mail and local radio station broadcasts. Question 14: Does your school have appropriate enforcement of discipline? How?

F20: Schools use various policies/actions as guided by the applicable Education Code, to enforce discipline including: • referrals to school administration • parent conferences • Student Attendance Review Boards (SARB) • progressive discipline plans (e.g., detention, suspension, expulsion) 4 Ventura County Schools Question 15: How does the school determine if a potential visitor belongs there or not?

F21: All school visitors are required to sign in at the front office and most are provided a visitor’s identification badge if they have a valid reason to be on campus. Staff checks visitor information including: • verifying emergency cards against valid visitor identification • verifying campus volunteer identification to ensure that they are cleared by District Offices • requiring that all vendors check in at the front office before entering campuses • challenging any visitor who does not have a valid visitor’s identification badge Question 16: Is an identification badge system, including visitors, used on your campus?

F22: Eighty-eight percent of Schools have an identification badge system. Question 17: Is your school equipped with emergency supplies? What type?

Related Recommendations (1)

R04: All Schools should issue unique identification badges to visitors. (C-08)

F23: All Schools have approximately three days of emergency supplies on campus. These typically include: • potable water • food • emergency medical supplies • blankets • flashlights • communication devices (e.g., two-way radios, etc.) Question 18: Does staff supervising the campus have hand held communication devices? What are they?

F24: All Schools have several two-way radios (walkie-talkies) that are used by campus supervisors. Question 19: Does the school have peer mediation and conflict resolution programs? If so, what programs are available?

F25: Ninety-two percent of schools have peer mediation and conflict resolution programs. The other Schools have counselor/administration mediation and conflict resolution programs in place.

F26: Counselors provide support for these programs through individual and group counseling. The programs include: • Rachael’s Challenge Ventura County Schools 5 • Second Step • Safe School Ambassadors Programs • “Don’t laugh at me.” • Character Counts • Word Trait of the Month • Pride Program Question 20: Does your school have anti-bullying, tolerance, and character education programs? What are they?

F27: All Schools have unique programs that address bullying, intolerance, and that provide character education. Schools often use one or more of the programs listed in the previous finding. Question 21: Does your school have counselors who can provide help to troubled students? What is your ratio of student to counselor?

Related Recommendations (1)

R06: All Schools should continue/enhance anti-bullying and tolerance programs. (C-12) Ventura County Schools 9 Responses Responses Required: Board of Education Conejo Valley Unified (R-01 through R-06) Board of Education Fillmore Unified (R-01 through R-06) Board of Trustees Hueneme Elementary School District (R-01 through R-06) Board of Trustees Mesa Union (R-01 through R-06) Board of Education Moorpark Unified (R-01 through R-06) Governing Board Ocean View (R-01 through R-06) Board of Education Ojai Unified (R-01 through R-06) Board of Trustees Oxnard Elementary (R-01 through R-06) Board of Trustees Pleasant Valley Elementary (R-01 through R-06) Board of Trustees Rio School District (R-01 through R-06) Board of Trustees Santa Paula Elementary (R-01 through R-06) Board of Education Simi Valley Unified (R-01 through R-06) Board of Trustees Somis Union (R-01 through R-06) Board of Education Ventura Unified School District (R-01 through R-06) Responses Accepted: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools (R-01 through R-06) Oxnard Police Department (R-02) Port Hueneme Police Department (R-02) Santa Paula Police Department (R-02) Simi Valley Police Department (R-02) Ventura Police Department (R-02) Sheriff, County of Ventura (R-02) References Ref-01 California State Assembly Bill 722, Study of Pupil Personnel Ratios, Services, and Programs, dated July, 2003 Ref-02 What is a Resource Officer? Missouri School Board Association Website http://www.schoolsprepared.org Ref-03 Title 5, California Code of Regulations §14001(f) Ref-04 Title IV, Part A, Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities §4001 10 Ventura County Schools Attachments Att-01 Survey: How Prepared is Your School? (These questions are based in part on an article in California Educator, October 2007.) Ventura County Schools 11 (This page intentionally blank) 12 Ventura County Schools Attachment-01 Survey: How Prepared is Your School? Ventura County Schools 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Ventura County Schools Ventura County Schools 15 16 Ventura County Schools Ventura County Schools 17 (This page intentionally blank) 18 Ventura County Schools

F28: All Schools except one have at least one counselor.

F29: Students:counselor ratio ranges from 314:1 to 840:1. Question 22: Does your school have a close cooperative relationship with local law enforcement? Does your school have a School Resource Officer (SRO) or something comparable? If so, what do they do? Is there a job description? How many hours a week are they on campus? How are they paid?

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: All school districts should comply with AB722 to maintain recommended students:counselor ratios. (C-09, C-10)

F30: All Schools report having a close working relationship with their local law enforcement and have direct and immediate access to officers via telephone.

F31: Nine Schools have dedicated SROs assigned to their campuses; some schools may share one officer. These officers are generally on campus two to four hours, three or four days each week. SROs provide services such as: • counseling students • serving as deterrent to inappropriate behavior • conducting home visits as necessary • citing students for infractions • dealing with truancy issues • monitoring campus for intruders

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: All Schools should have a dedicated SRO on campus during school hours. (C-11)

F32: SROs are generally compensated by local law enforcement agencies, School Districts, individual cities, Federal grants under Title IV (Safe and Drug Free Schools) and/or combinations of these. [Ref-04] 6 Ventura County Schools Question 23: Do you provide encouragement for parents willing to help in crime prevention? If so how many parents are involved in your school?

F33: Eighty-four percent of Schools encourage parental participation in their school crime prevention effort.

F34: The number of parents actively involved in crime prevention programs at these Schools is minimal. Question 24: Do you take threats seriously and deal with them as acts of violence? How are they followed up on and what actions are taken?

F35: All Schools report that they take threats seriously and deal with them immediately.

F36: Schools follow district, local, state and federal guidelines for threats including: • investigating all threats thoroughly • notifying parents • involving SRO/law enforcement agencies when appropriate • debriefing staff • notifying district administrators • taking appropriate disciplinary action Question 25: Do you have a method to facilitate anonymous reporting of threats or problems? What is it?

F37: All Schools have systems/procedures to facilitate anonymous reporting of threats/problems. These include: • WeTip • Safe School Ambassadors • Standardized Emergency Management System • anonymous telephone hotline • anonymous notes to staff • e-mail

F38: Students are reluctant to report threats or problems. Question 26: Is training being provided for school staff and students in becoming aware of their surroundings, meaning they will notice and report behavior that presents cause for concern or the presence of people who don’t belong on campus? What is it?

F39: Eighty-four percent of Schools have formal and/or informal awareness training programs for their staff and students. Various School safety issues are discussed at staff meetings, student body assemblies, and during counselor presentations. Topics include: Ventura County Schools 7 • lock-down procedures • awareness of strangers • identification badge system • incident reporting procedures • gang awareness • anti-bullying/anti-harassment • sexual harassment • sexual abuse • physical abuse • school safety rules Other Findings:

F40: School campuses observed by the Grand Jury were well maintained.

F41: School administrators interviewed stated that perimeter fencing and gates help control access to their campuses.

F42: AB722, Study of Pupil Personnel Ratios, Services, and Programs, dated July 2003, recommends that the “adequate ratio” of students:counselor at middle schools is 461:1. [Ref-01]

F43: AB722 also states, “Today’s students face increased challenges with decreased support. Peer pressure, bullying at school, dysfunctional families, drug and tobacco use, growing teen suicide rates all contribute to student feelings of anxiety and depression and create barriers to learning. More than ever before, counseling and pupil support services play a critical role in the academic preparation and social development of our youth.” [Ref-01]

F44: law enforcement agencies throughout the County expressed support for having SROs on all Middle and High School campuses. They further said that SROs help maintain secure campuses and promote safer learning environments.

F45: “The successful SRO works during the normal school day as well as during co-curricular events. The SRO is instrumental in providing a safe environment conducive to the learning process. Students and faculty have a heightened perception of safety due to the work of the SRO. The SRO strives to improve the ‘working’ environment for students, administrators, faculty, custodians, food service workers and others.” [Ref-02] Conclusions C-01. All Schools maintain and meet California school building standards for fire and earthquake safety. Hazardous materials are accounted for and locked-up. (F-01, F-03, F-04, F-07) 8 Ventura County Schools C-02. All Schools have comprehensive procedures regarding actions required during a fire, earthquake, and school lockdowns. Drills are conducted on a regular basis. (F-03, F-04, F-07, F-10, F-11, F-13 through F-15) C-03. Schools have and maintain adequate amounts of water, food, and emergency supplies. (F-23) C-04. Schools with complete perimeter fencing and locking gates are able to control access to, and egress from, campuses. (F-06, F-41) C-05. Classrooms that lock from the inside offer protection. (F-10 through F-12) C-06. Classrooms that have telephones with outside line access are able to contact emergency services directly. (F-08) C-07. Schools with automated telephone message systems are able to efficiently contact parents/emergency contacts. (F-19) C-08. The use of unique identification badges allows staff to quickly identify anyone who does not belong on campus. (F-21, F-22) C-09. The Grand Jury agrees with AB722 that counselors at middle schools provide support to students at a critical time in their lives. (F-42, F-43) C-10. There are an inadequate number of counselors assigned to Schools. (F-29, F-42, F-43) C-11. SROs help create and maintain a safe, secure, and orderly learning environment for students, teachers, and staff. (F-30, F-31, F-44, F-45) C-12. Anti-bullying and tolerance programs have the potential to effectively change aggressive behavior. (F-27, F-37, F-38, F-43) Recommendations

December 18, 2007 — Controls Self-Assessment Program Restart

16 pages 39 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 39 findings

F01: A tri-annual Departmental Internal Control Self-Assessment Program was initiated by the A-C and the CEO in February 2004. The current CSA requires every department to be responsible for reviewing its internal controls, determining risk areas within its operations, and strengthening its internal control structure.

F02: The CSA is mandatory for all County agencies and departments.

F03: The A-C is responsible for development, implementation, and follow through of the CSA.

F04: Management is responsible for establishing an effective system of internal controls to ensure compliance with laws and regulations under government auditing standards.

F05: The CSA is primarily focused on financial controls versus operational controls. Organization Structure

F06: Pursuant to Government Code §26883, the A-C is directed to perform audits of the County.

F07: The CEO and the A-C coordinate to assure that agencies and departments comply with CSA due dates. Controls Self-Assessment Program

F08: According to Ordinance 4235, “The CEO shall in cooperation with the Auditor Controller, supervise, direct, review, and maintain an adequate internal auditing system.”

F09: A County Executive Committee, consisting of all agency and department heads, holds monthly meetings. The CSA status is an agenda item as required.

F10: The BOS approves the budgets of elected officials and appointed agency/department heads.

F11: The CEO is responsible for overseeing CSA corrective actions by all agency and department heads.

F12: The A-C issues audit reports and makes recommendations. County agencies and departments provide responses to the A-C regarding the implementation of recommendations. The CEO is involved with issues regarding implementation of recommendations.

F13: A risk assessment is an outcome of the CSA. The A-C is responsible for conducting a county-wide risk assessment of all agencies and departments.

F14: The office of CEO supports the CSA by assuring that agencies and departments, both elected and appointed, know their responsibilities and follow through as requested.

F15: CEO Program Management Analysts are assigned to follow-up if a compliance issue is identified in an audit.

F16: CEO Program Management Analysts participate in both entrance and exit interviews on departmental audits. Audit Department

F17: In the A-C response to the 2003-2004 Ventura County Grand Jury report, “Anatomy of an Audit,” the A-C stated, “We do not have sufficient audit resources to establish a meaningful audit program for the County.” [Ref-03]

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The A-C and the Human Resources Director should jointly conduct a comprehensive study to resolve staffing, recruiting, and retention issues in the Audit Department, and provide the results and recommendations to the CEO and the BOS. (C-02, C-03)

F18: In the A-C response to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury report, “Ventura County: A Failure to Audit,” the A-C agreed with a finding that “As a result of staff reductions in the Audit Division, no follow-up or review of the Internal Control Self-Assessment Questionnaire has been done,” which referred to the 2004 CSA Program. [Ref-04]

Related Recommendations (1)

F19: After the addition of one auditor in February 2008, there were two unfilled auditor positions. The A-C office staff auditors each have less than three years auditing experience.

Related Recommendations (1)

F20: The A-C develops the fiscal year Audit Plan for the County based upon criteria such as legal mandates, audit requests, financial exposure, and potential risk of loss.

F21: The 2007-2008 Audit Plan for the County includes an estimate of 6,760 planned audit hours. Controls Self-Assessment Program 3

F22: The 2007-2008 Audit Plan for the County includes an estimated 14,340 hours of Future Potential Audits, as identified by the A-C and requests from others, that will not be accomplished in the current fiscal year due to the lack of auditors.

Related Recommendations (1)

R04: The A-C should develop a plan to increase the use of contract audit firms to resolve the backlog of potential discretionary audit areas that are identified each year in the Audit Plan for the County which cannot be completed by existing County staff. (C-02) Controls Self-Assessment Program 5 Responses Responses Required: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-02, R-03) Auditor-Controller, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-04) Responses Requested: County Executive Officer, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-03) References Ref-01 County of Ventura “Internal Control Guidelines and Control Self- Assessment Program – 2007” Ref-02 Ventura County Ordinance 4235 Ref-03 2003-2004 Ventura County Grand Jury report, “Anatomy of an Audit,” including responses Ref-04 2006-2007 Ventura County Grand Jury report, “Ventura County: A Failure to Audit,” including responses Ref-05 FY2007-2008 Audit Plan, County of Ventura Attachments Att-01 Letter from County Executive Officer and Auditor-Controller dated December 18, 2007 to the Board of Supervisors titled, “Report on the County’s Internal Control Self-Assessment Program.” Att-02 Letter from Auditor-Controller dated January 29, 2008 to the Board of Supervisors titled, “Auditor-Controller Report on Ventura County’s 2007 Control Self-Assessment Program.” 6 Controls Self-Assessment Program Attachment–01 Report on the County’s Internal Control Self-Assessment Program Controls Self-Assessment Program 7 (This page intentionally blank) 8 Controls Self-Assessment Program Controls Self-Assessment Program 9 10 Controls Self-Assessment Program Attachment–02 Auditor-Controller Report Ventura County’s 2007 Control Self-Assessment Program Controls Self-Assessment Program 11 (This page intentionally blank) 12 Controls Self-Assessment Program Controls Self-Assessment Program 13 14 Controls Self-Assessment Program Controls Self-Assessment Program 15 (This page intentionally blank) 16 Controls Self-Assessment Program

F23: The 2007-2008 Audit Plan for the County contains 800 auditor hours to support the CSA.

F24: The A-C has the funding and flexibility to contract additional audit tasks within the total A-C budget.

F25: Not all contracted auditors have knowledge of County operations, which requires training and staff support.

Related Recommendations (1)

F26: Contracted auditors are typically limited to seasonal lower level assignments.

Related Recommendations (1)

F27: The A-C budget includes senior level audit positions; however, current and past practice is to hire less experienced auditors due to market conditions.

Related Recommendations (1)

F28: In order to improve the CSA, audit procedures now provide for staff auditors to meet with agency and department staff to provide guidance and implementation assistance and to help identify areas of potential financial exposure.

F29: County policy allows for flexibility to hire at a higher “step” level and thus hire auditors at a higher pay rate within a job classification.

F30: Focused advertising and utilization of recruiting can be utilized in addition to traditional recruiting processes.

F31: The Human Resources Department has not conducted a formal study of compensation for internal auditors.

Related Recommendations (1)

F32: There are limited career paths and growth opportunities for auditors within the audit department; however, upward mobility has been achieved by transferring to other opportunities within the County. Responsiveness

Related Recommendations (1)

F33: The CSA Program was revived in 2007 after the initial 2004 Program was not completed.

F34: The initial 2007 input date for submitting the names of CSA coordinators was July 31, 2007. Fourteen of twenty-six organizations (54%) failed to meet the due date. Six organizations had not complied by October 10, 2007.

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The A-C and the CEO should issue joint quarterly reports to the BOS regarding compliance of findings and recommendations for agency and department control issues. The report should be incorporated in quarterly reports of departmental compliance with the CSA to the BOS. (C-01, C-05)

F35: As of November 1, 2007, four of twenty-six departments (15%) had not submitted the CSA inputs due October 31, 2007. The A-C had been notified that the date would not be met prior to the due date.

Related Recommendations (1)

F36: The Treasurer-Tax Collector will participate in the mandatory 2007 CSA, using the 2004 CSA questionnaire completed in January 2007, in conjunction with extensive external audits. Controls Self-Assessment Program

F37: The BOS will be informed by the CEO and the A-C when a department or agency has not complied with CSA requirements.

F38: A joint report, dated December 18, 2007, was submitted by the CEO and the A-C to the BOS regarding status of A-C, CEO, and departmental efforts on the CSA. [Att-01]

F39: A subsequent report, dated January 29, 2008, was submitted by the A- C to the BOS describing CSA participation, preliminary status of internal controls, and next steps to be taken. [Att-02] Conclusions C-01. The CSA is the primary source for internal controls and risk assessment within the County. (F-01 through F-05) C-02. Effective recruitment of staff auditors is an ongoing problem that has negatively impacted County auditing capability. (F-17 through F-32) C-03. Retention of staff auditors is an ongoing problem that has negatively impacted County auditing capability. (F-17 through F-32) C-04. There is no formal process or procedure between the A-C and the CEO to ensure compliance with the CSA. (F-06 through F-32) C-05. CSA responses to the A-C were not timely. Due dates were widely missed. (F-33 through F-39) Recommendations

December 12, 2007 — Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction

22 pages 37 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 37 findings

F01: The Department is under the supervision of the County Executive Officer (CEO) and the BOS for policy and oversight. [Att-01]

F02: The Project restrooms are not within the Department’s boundaries and are not included in the Department’s property inventory.

F03: Public complaints to the Department regarding the condition of the public beach restrooms began prior to 2001.

F04: The Department was assigned the task of replacing the restrooms at the request of the CEO.

F05: The Department requested the County Airports Director to assist in securing the required reconstruction permits since the Airports Department had experience with the permitting process. Approvals

F06: The Department obtained coastal zoning clearances #ZC07-0183 and #ZC07-0182 in February 2007 for public restrooms at SSB and HB.

F07: Building permits #PLR07-1216 and #PLR07-1217 were issued by the Resource Management Agency (RMA) in June 2007 to remodel existing public restrooms at SSB and HB.

F08: The Project was subject to the County Coastal Plan certified by the CCC.

F09: In issuing building permits and coastal zone clearance for the Project, the Department used the following terms to describe the type of construction being permitted: 2 Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction • construction • remodel

F10: The complainants contend that the proper term to describe the Project at mid-beach on SSB and HB is new construction.

F11: The Department contractor’s bid was to completely remove the former restrooms and reconstruct them in the same locations. Location

F12: Required coastal zone approvals from RMA were waived since this was reconstruction in the same location as the former restrooms.

F13: In June 2007, the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) was contacted by the Department inquiring into the feasibility of locating the mid-beach SSB restroom on State property in La Jenelle Park, which is located at the south end of SSB. No further action was taken by the Department due to costs.

F14: The County has leased La Jenelle State Park since 1973.

F15: Relocation of the SSB mid-beach Project to the south end of SSB could be accomplished: • through the approval of the CSLC which would negotiate price and terms for relocation on State property at La Jenelle Park • with new Environmental Impact Study Checklist • with new RMA approvals

F16: The additional budget expense for the relocation of the SSB project would also require: • an Environmental Impact Report at an estimated cost in excess of $500,000 • additional time to secure permits which has a cost value • new County building permits at an undetermined cost Public Notification

F17: Public notification for the Project was conducted in several acceptable ways: • mailings to the affected private property owners through water bills • public meetings held by the Department for the public to voice their opinions • Website for the County and Department announcing meetings and or related agenda items • hand delivered notices to affected private property owners Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction 3 • BOS meeting agenda items concerning the Department posted on the BOS Website. • site postings (this was not used due to vandalism experience)

Related Recommendations (2)

R01: The Department should continue to notify affected private property owners near a County project which may affect private property values. A formal written procedure of public notification should be added to the 6 Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction Department Manual of Policies and Procedures. Records of notifications and resulting public comments should be maintained. (C-03)

R02: The Department should continue to hold public meetings and maintain records of public comments. (C-03)

F18: BOS public hearings and agenda items relating to the Project occurred on October 3, 2006, November 14, 2006, December 12, 2006, and November 20, 2007.

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The Department should continue to hold public meetings and maintain records of public comments. (C-03)

F19: The Department held public meetings related to the Project in June 2006 and October 2007. Public Safety

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The Department should continue to hold public meetings and maintain records of public comments. (C-03)

F20: Beach restroom maintenance is provided by the Department at the request of the CEO.

F21: Public safety issues of beach restrooms are shared responsibilities of the Department’s Harbor Patrol (water), the Oxnard Police Department (land), and the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (land). ADA Access

Related Recommendations (1)

R04: The Department should assist residents to form a type of “Neighborhood Watch” program for the safety issues surrounding public beach restrooms and coordinate efforts with Oxnard Police Department, Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, and the Harbor Patrol which together are responsible for public safety at County beaches. (C-04)

F22: The construction of the public restrooms is in compliance with all Federal, State, and County building code ordinances including Title 24/ADA. (The Department intends to continue its program of providing balloon-tired wheel chairs to cross the sand at SSB and HB restrooms.) Budget and Costs

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: Appropriate steps should be taken to assure that all disabled and handicapped members of the public have beach restroom access instead of relying exclusively on County provided balloon-tired wheelchairs. (C-05)

F23: The Project was first referenced in the 2000-2005 County Capital Improvements Report and in several successive County reports: • 2003-2008 County Capital Improvements Report • 2003 County Budget line item note Structural and Improvements Contracts • 2005-2006 Operation of Enterprise Fund Report • CEO 2002-2007 5-Year Report for Capital Improvements • CEO 2003-2008 5-Year Report for Capital The Project was deferred due to lack of funds.

F24: In the 2003-2008 County Capital Improvements Report, it was noted that the lifeguard/public restroom facility at the north end of SSB was earmarked demolished as a result of a 2002 storm and the HB public restroom was noted to be in poor condition and beyond renovation status.

F25: The BOS initial funding pass-through of $1.2 million was in FY2005- 2006 budget for the Project.

F26: The budget adopted for FY2006-2007 added $1.0 million additional pass-through revenue for the funding of the Project. Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction

F27: The BOS allocated a total pass-through of $2,259,000 which included a $59,000 payment from the insured storm damage to complete the three public restrooms/lifeguard tower projects.

F28: The 2007-2008 Ventura County Preliminary Budget Book noted in the Accomplishments section that construction drawings for the replacement of two public beach restrooms were completed and out for bids.

F29: The cost of architecturals (blueprints and engineering) is normally about 10% or less of the construction cost. This was exceeded for the two public restrooms due to thirteen redrafts of the plans as a result of public and staff recommendations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R05: The Department should inform the public of costs, locations, and construction procedures for similar coastal projects prior to implementation. (C-06)

F30: The cost of construction for the Project included: • permits • demolition • utility off-sites (utilities brought to the site from the utility vendors, not utilities within the project site) • facility construction to coastal zone standards • construction oversight consultant

F31: Qualified architectural bids for the Project were awarded to bidders based on experience with coastal zone construction standards required for this Project.

F32: Qualified construction bids for the Project were awarded to bidders based primarily on cost.

F33: Three contracts were awarded for the construction of public restrooms at mid-beach SSB and HB. (A third public restroom/lifeguard tower combination building at SSB was put on hold.) The cost breakdown was: • architecture and engineering $154,930 • facility construction $595,001 • construction oversight consulting $63,920 [Att-02]

Related Recommendations (1)

R07: The Auditor-Controller should audit the use of funds for this Project when it is completed. (C-08) Responses Responses Required: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-05) Auditor-Controller, County of Ventura (R-06, R-07) Responses Requested: Harbor Department, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-05) Attachments Att-01 County Organization Chart Att-02 County Construction and Consulting Contract Cover Pages Att-03 Aerial Photos of Public Restroom Projects Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction 7 (This page intentionally blank) 8 Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction Attachment-01 County Organization Chart Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction 9 (This page intentionally blank) 10 Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction 11 (This page intentionally blank) 12 Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction Attachment-02 County Construction and Consulting Contract Cover Pages Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction 15 16 Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction 17 18 Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction Attachment-03 Aerial Photos of Public Restroom Projects Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction 19 (This page intentionally blank) 20 Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction 21 (This page intentionally blank) 22 Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction

F34: The cost for the two public restrooms conformed to typical governmental contracts for similar projects in other southland coastal counties. The total was $813,851 or approximately one third of the BOS allocation for the three public restroom/lifeguard tower projects. [Att-03]

Related Recommendations (1)

F35: The Department has a budget of approximately $10,000,000 per year and the last comprehensive County audit was in the late 1990’s. Silver Strand Mid-Beach Public Restroom Reconstruction 5 Property Values

Related Recommendations (1)

R06: The Auditor-Controller should perform a comprehensive audit of the Department at least every three years. (C-08)

F36: Complainants stated that their property values are affected by: • types of public structures • loss of viewscapes • graffiti • behavior at public restroom facilities

F37: The mid-beach SSB public restroom has been in its current location for over 30 years. Conclusions C-01. The Department did not exceed its granted authority in contracting the demolition and reconstruction of the public restroom at mid-beach SSB. (F-04) C-02. The Department followed building codes for the Project. (F-06 through

November 27, 2007 — Ventura County Fire Protection District: Inventory Control Deficiencies

8 pages 40 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 40 findings

F01: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury issued a report, “Ventura County Fire Protection District Material and Inventory Controls”, based upon a public complaint about lack of policy enforcement in the District that left the district vulnerable to misuse and theft of equipment. The inquiry did not substantiate that an alleged theft or misuse of equipment had taken place. [Ref-01]

F02: In an effort to promote strong internal controls, the Auditor-Controller and the CEO jointly established Internal Control Guidelines and developed a CSA Program in 2004.

F03: The CSA is a mandatory tri-annual requirement for all elected and appointed officials, to report on the status of internal controls in their departments.

F04: The Auditor-Controller replied to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury report, “Ventura County: A Failure to Audit” and responded that as a result of staff reductions in the audit division, no follow-up or review of the 2004 CSA was completed.

F05: The Auditor-Controller completed an audit of the District’s cash collection process in September 2007. The report stated, “. . . management disclosed a reactionary approach to internal control management, whereby active engagement in fiscal oversight activities is pursued as issues arise . . .” [Ref-02]

F06: The Auditor-Controller further stated, “Although our audit did not disclose specific instances of fraud, the District’s manual cash collection process was susceptible to theft, loss, or misappropriation of funds because of several significant internal control weaknesses.” [Ref-02]

F07: The District submitted the 2007 CSA Internal Control Questionnaire and Risk Matrix/Assessment to the Auditor-Controller on November 27, 2007. The due date was October 31, 2007. An extension was requested and granted by the Auditor-Controller.

F08: Within the Risk Assessment section of the 2007 CSA, the District disclosed that: • a sensitive item inventory is conducted annually • segregation of duties may be an issue • reconciliation to purchases are not performed • not all procedures are in place

F09: County Administrative Policy Manual, Chapter VII (B)-3, states that County non-fixed assets are subject to internal audits by the Auditor- Controller’s Office. [Ref-04]

F10: The District is included in an all-funds audit prepared by external auditors every year (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report-CAFR). There were no findings regarding fixed and sensitive non-fixed assets in the last three years reports.

F11: The last audit of the District’s Schedule of Inventory and Inventory Observation of District Departmental Supply and Repair Shop, was performed by the Auditor-Controller on June 30, 1991 (17 years ago).

F12: The last follow-up audit of District Management and Operations was performed by the Auditor-Controller in June 1996 (12 years ago).

F13: The 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report, “A Failure to Audit,” recommended that all departments be audited at least every three years. The Auditor- Controller responded, “Although an excellent goal, the County finances are not always available. Implementation of this recommendation would require a staffing increase of at least three more auditors and one more fiscal manager.” [Ref-03]

F14: Neither the District nor the Ventura County Treasurer-Tax Collector completed the mandatory 2004 CSA Program.

F15: The District is a dependent special district, formed by a special election in 1928. The BOS is the Fire District’s Board of Directors.

F16: The District is responsible for maintaining, control, and operation of over $90 million of fixed assets.

F17: A Chief Officer of the District in late 2005 contacted its Information Technology Department (IT) to advise them that the Ventura Police Department had recovered a laptop owned by the District during a law enforcement raid.

F18: No action, including a physical inventory, was taken by the District as a result of the reported loss of a laptop computer in 2005.

F19: The District completed a physical inventory of its laptop computers in October 2007. The results indicated that a total of nine computers, costing in excess of $28,000, were missing from the IT Department: • six had been purchased in 2005 • two had been purchased in 2006 • one had been purchased in 2007

Related Recommendations (1)

F20: The Manual, Chapter VII (B)-3, establishes accountability for control over County-owned sensitive non-fixed assets. Sensitive non-fixed assets are items with a cost of less than $5,000 e.g., laptop computers, that are subject to pilferage and misappropriation and which, therefore, warrant special handling. [Ref-04]

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The Grand Jury recommends the County revise its Administrative Policy Manual to provide guidance in reporting loss or theft of sensitive non- fixed assets. (C-01)

F21: The District advised the Ventura County District Attorney, Auditor- Controller, CEO and others on October 17, 2007 of several missing laptop computers, including the one recovered in 2005 by the Ventura City Police Department.

F22: In October 2007, the District requested the Auditor-Controller to perform a survey of its management of sensitive non-fixed assets.

F23: The Auditor-Controller completed the survey and notified the District on February 19, 2008 that an audit would be performed with emphasis on IT assets.

F24: As of the end of April 2008, the District (seven months after the preliminary determination of losses) had yet to initiate a comprehensive physical inventory of all sensitive items.

F25: The Manual requires that a “specific person” be designated in each agency or department to maintain the non-fixed asset information. Additionally, the designated person is directed to “Conduct periodic inventory of sensitive non-fixed assets and reconcile with the master list. Discrepancies should be researched and resolved.” [Ref-04]

F26: The Manual states, “Agency and department heads are responsible for determining which non-fixed assets should be classified as sensitive and establishing and implementing controls to maintain proper accountability over sensitive non-fixed assets.” [Ref-04]

F27: The District includes all communication equipment, computers, defibrillators, cardiac monitoring devices, and rescue equipment as sensitive items subject to inventory verification.

F28: The Manual, Chapter VII (B)-2, establishes the requirement, “Agency and department heads who have custody of fixed assets shall be responsible for filing an inventory of all fixed assets in his/her possession with the Auditor-Controller’s Office no later than July 10 of each year.” [Ref-04]

F29: The District’s Bureau of Fiscal Services (Bureau) is responsible for assuring compliance with County policies on fixed and sensitive non- fixed asset inventories.

F30: Standing Orders are memos that are distributed to the entire District and are posted on its internal Website. Each year, hard copies along with attachments of the fixed asset lists, are distributed to Fire Stations, Departments, and Program Managers, including the District’s IT Department.

F31: The Bureau issued Standing Orders regarding the annual fixed asset inventory in May 2005, June 2006, and June 2007. All District Program Managers were assigned responsibility for inventorying all communication and computer equipment.

F32: The Bureau sends a master list of sensitive items to be inventoried to all departments within the District each year.

F33: The IT Department Program Manager is responsible for sensitive items, and also performs the physical inventory.

F34: The computerized IT data base of sensitive items has not been reliable, and is supplemented by a manual tracking system.

F35: District practice has been to match data base items to a master list of sensitive items, instead of performing the required physical inventory.

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The County should require annual physical inventories of all sensitive non-fixed assets, rather than the current practice of periodic inventories. (C-01, C-05)

F36: The required physical inventory of sensitive non-fixed assets, including computers owned by the District, has not been completed in at least three years.

Related Recommendations (2)

R02: The County should require annual physical inventories of all sensitive non-fixed assets, rather than the current practice of periodic inventories. (C-01, C-05)

F37: The Bureau does a limited spot check, and does not reconcile the physical inventory count submitted by individual fire stations, warehouse or other departments in the District, to the master inventory records. The physical inventory count is assumed to be accurate.

Related Recommendations (4)

R06: The Auditor-Controller should review and recommend improvements to the procedures used by the District to conduct and reconcile its annual physical inventory of fixed assets. (C-06, C-08)

R07: The Auditor-Controller should take an active role in the oversight of the annual physical inventory of fixed assets and sensitive non-fixed assets for the County of Ventura. (C-02, C-06, C-08, C-09)

R08: The Grand Jury recommends that the Auditor-Controller provide audit hours each year, to observe the required annual physical inventory of all County fixed and sensitive non-fixed assets. (C-08, C-09) Responses Responses Required: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-03, R-05) Auditor-Controller, County of Ventura (R-05 through R-08) Responses Requested: County Executive Officer, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-03, R-05) Fire Protection District, County of Ventura (R-03 through R-06) References Ref-01 2004-2005 Ventura County Grand Jury report, “Ventura County Fire Protection District Material and Inventory Controls.” Ref-02 Audit of the VCFPD Cash Collection Process dated September 28, 2007. Ref-03 Response from Auditor-Controller to 2006-2007 Grand Jury report, “Ventura County, A Failure to Audit,” dated June 11, 2007. Ref-04 County of Ventura Administrative Policy Manual – Property Control.

F38: The Bureau does not verify or reconcile the physical inventory of sensitive non-fixed assets.

Related Recommendations (4)

R06: The Auditor-Controller should review and recommend improvements to the procedures used by the District to conduct and reconcile its annual physical inventory of fixed assets. (C-06, C-08)

F39: The County has a Fixed Asset Subsystem Training Manual. No written procedures to direct the District in taking and reconciling the District’s annual physical inventory of fixed and sensitive assets could be identified.

Related Recommendations (3)

R06: The Auditor-Controller should review and recommend improvements to the procedures used by the District to conduct and reconcile its annual physical inventory of fixed assets. (C-06, C-08)

F40: The District had not requested, and the Auditor-Controller had not provided, training or assistance in procedures for taking and reconciling the annual physical inventory, until the reported loss of nine laptops. Conclusions C-01. No action was taken to report the loss of District laptop computers because County/District policy does not address reporting loss of sensitive non-fixed asset items valued at less than $5,000 each. (F-17, F-18, F-20) C-02. The District’s internal controls for sensitive non-fixed asset inventory procedures are inadequate based on the District’s reactionary approach to internal control issues. (F-05, F-06, F-24, F-36, F-37, F-40) C-03. As a consequence of not participating in the County’s mandatory 2004 CSA, the District facilitated the loss of District property (computers) by failing to identify internal control weaknesses. (F-02 through F-04, F-14,

Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Reorganization

14 pages 24 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 24 findings

F01: Memorial districts are formed under and operate pursuant to the provisions of the Military and Veterans Code of the State of California. [Ref-05]

F02: The District was formed in 1950 as an independent special district that serves Fillmore, the unincorporated community of Piru, and other unincorporated areas in the east-central portion of Ventura County. Civic, religious, and educational organizations are allowed to use various portions of the buildings and facilities for a nominal fee. There is no user fee for Veterans’ organizations or other organizations the Board designates. [Ref-02]

F03: The District’s sources of revenue are a share of the property tax, hall rental, fee charges, and a special District property assessment of $5.00 per parcel. [Ref-02]

F04: Approximately two-thirds of the District’s property tax and special property assessment revenues are derived from private property within the incorporated boundaries of Fillmore. [Ref-02]

F05: Registered voters usually elect an independent district’s board of directors. Dependent districts are governed by existing legislative bodies such as a city council or county board of supervisors. [Ref-01]

F06: The Directors of the District receive no compensation but are entitled to reasonable expenses in the performance of Board duties. [Ref-01]

F07: The Military and Veterans Code §1195 requires that elections for board members of memorial districts be held in odd-numbered years and that at least three seats be designated for Veterans [Ref-05]

F08: Elections held in conjunction with regular elections cost an estimated $2,500. Memorial district elections held in odd-numbered years are estimated to cost $25,000. [Ref-02] 2 Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Reorganization

F09: The District has not held an election since before 1990. In lieu of an election the BOS reappoints incumbents and/or appoints new members. [Ref-02]

F10: LAFCos have no investigative authority. LAFCo MSRs are studies not investigations. [Ref-02]

F11: The MSR’s major determinations are its dependence on Fillmore, the majority of its revenue coming from property taxes and special parcel assessment, and no contested elections since before 1990. LAFCo determined that the District should be dissolved. [Ref-02]

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The Grand Jury recommends that the District be reorganized as a subsidiary district of Fillmore through the State legislative process. (C-01, C-05) 4 Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Reorganization

F12: LAFCo would likely support the distribution of the District’s assets to Fillmore as the logical successor agency if the District were to dissolve.

F13: The Board has not completed the mandatory ethics training required by AB1234 passed in 2005. [Ref-02, Ref-04]

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board complete AB1234, mandatory ethics training, regardless of a decision to reorganize the District. (C-03) [Ref-04]

F14: The District currently includes 151,305 acres within its boundaries. [Att-02] [Ref-02]

F15: Fillmore provides all administrative, operational, and maintenance services for the District through a Joint Powers Agreement. The District has no employees. [Ref-02]

F16: The District received $208,932 during FY2005-2006 and FY2006-2007 from the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) as a County of Ventura Community Development Block Grant. The funds were used for maintenance, new fixtures, and to improve the facilities in the memorial buildings. [Att-01]

F17: According to the District’s audited financial statements, revenues exceeded expenditures by $120,657 for FY2003-2004 through FY2006- 2007. [Att-01]

F18: The County Supervisor for District 3, in which the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is located, supports any reorganization that simplifies government.

F19: There are four options that could be considered by the District: • special legislation by the State to reorganize the District into a subsidiary district of Fillmore • reorganization of the District into a subsidiary district of Fillmore using the “70% requirement method” • compliance by the Board regarding ethics training and elections • dissolution

F20: The District could reorganize through special State legislation whereby the District becomes a subsidiary district of Fillmore; the new district could maintain the same boundaries, real property, and revenues.

F21: Special State legislation requires approval by both houses of the Legislature. Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Reorganization 3

F22: An alternate method to reorganize the District into a subsidiary district and not require State legislation is the “70% requirement method”. Sufficient territory would have to be detached from the District so that Fillmore comprises at least 70% of the new district. As an example, adding part of the unincorporated area of Bardsdale (881 acres) to Fillmore’s 2,069 acres would bring the total area to 2,950 acres, thus meeting the “70% method”. The loss of revenue to the new District from the property tax allotment would be approximately $22,000. [Ref-02]

F23: There are 5,980 parcels in the District, with approximately 3,944 parcels in Fillmore. If the unincorporated area of Bardsdale was included, approximately 110 parcels would be added for an approximate total of 4,054 parcels. The loss of revenue to the new district from the $5.00 per parcel special assessment in this example is estimated at $10,000.

F24: Dissolution of the District could cause a loss of revenue from the District’s portion of the property tax and the $5.00 parcel special assessment. These two sources of revenue totaled $99,772 in FY2006- 2007. [Att-01] Conclusions C-01. If the District is dissolved, Fillmore with the support of LAFCo would likely assume the assets of the District. (F-12) C-02. Dissolution of the District will result in no revenues to Fillmore from the $5.00 per parcel special assessment and possibly from property taxes. (F-24) C-03. The District is currently not in compliance with California State Law in regard to elections and ethics training. (F-09, F-13) C-04. Under the “70% requirement method,” the Grand Jury estimates that the City of Fillmore could lose approximately $10,000 in revenue from the $5.00 per parcel special assessment, and $22,000 from the loss of property tax revenues for an estimated total revenue loss of $32,000 per year. This could impact the District’s administrative, maintenance, and operating budget. (F-22, F-23) C-05. If the existing District became a subsidiary district of Fillmore, through special State legislation, it could maintain the same boundaries, real property (including the Memorial Hall), and revenues. The Fillmore City Council could become the Board of Directors for the new district and the current Board could become an advisory or honorary board of directors. (F-05, F-20, F-21) Recommendations

Ventura County Hall of Administration: Safety, Security, and Executive Protection R-01: The signage on the east facing*

4 pages 17 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 17

Not linked to specific findings.

R01: The signage on the east facing main entrance of the HOA reading "no weapons" should be made more visible and easier to read by affixing an opaque white background to the signs, similar to the weapon signage on the lobby doors of the VCSD main jail facility. (C-02) Concur. The signage will be modified per your recommendation. The relevant penal code 171b will also be added. The estimated completion date is October 2008.

R02: The north entrance doors to the HOA should have weapon signage affixed to them. Since this entrance is not intended for public use, these doors should be configured as egress only. Access through this door could be provided for authorized employees via a pass card or a key pad. (C-01, C-02) Concur. Signage will be placed on the north entrance, which is identical to the main entrance. A plan to configure the north entrance for authorized employees is already in the works. The project involves replacing the existing manual doors with automated doors, both for ADA accommodation and to enhance security control capabilities. The project also includes the installation of an access card reader that will allow all to exit, but will limit entrance to approved badge holders only. The estimated completion date is October 2008.

R03: During normal business hours a marked security screening checkpoint for weapons or other unauthorized items should be set up in the east facing main entrance foyer. Exiting persons could be screened to assure County owned property is not being illegally taken from the building. (C-01, C-03) Does Not Concur. The issue of security screening was addressed in a County Counsel opinion (April 16, 2002) that stated "Members of the public have a right to use the Government Center to conduct their usual business activities, such as seeking information from the Tax Collector, Recorder, County Clerk, Resource Management, etc. Such a right should not be interfered with absent a compelling reason for doing so. You have provided no such justification other than a wide-reaching concern that County property may be subject to terrorism, which concern equally applies on a national scale and to a variety of facilities, both public and private. As set forth above, if the policy is to survive a court challenge, it should be supported by sufficient dispassionate facts to justify the intrusion to the general public." . . . Although this response was geared towards terrorism, the sufficient cause is absent and the issue of a court challenge still applies. There is no history of violent crimes, shootings or other incidents involving weapons in the Hall of Administration. While there is no guarantee that such acts will not happen in the future, there is also no compelling case to be made for creating an "intrusion to the general public". Furthermore, employee theft has not been a problem significant enough to warrant exit screening.

R04: The County's policy and procedures relative to security would be strengthened by amending County Ordinance 4036 to include items that should be excluded from public meetings, e.g., unauthorized amplified sound, large picket signs, large posters/banners, food, and drink. The amendment should also address cell phone and pager usage in public meetings. (C-04) Does Not Concur. The General Services Agency respectfully disagrees with the Grand Jury, as the exclusion of picket signs, posters/banners, etc., may pose limitations to free speech which may have legal ramifications.

R05: The BOS should request the Sheriff to assign a VCSD deputy to serve as a Sergeant-at-Arms for each public BOS meeting. (C-01, C-04) Concur. This recommendation was previously implemented by the Sheriff's Department on October 2006. The Sheriff's Department provides a plain clothed, armed Sheriff's Deputy at every Board of Supervisor's meeting. In addition, close attention is paid to items on the agenda that may create high turn out, have a history of extreme reaction, or create the possibility of extreme reaction. Under those or other circumstances where an elevated presence of security or Law Enforcement personnel is warranted, appropriate adjustments are made.

R06: The dais where the Supervisors sit in BOS chambers should be modified to incorporate protective ballistic shielding. (C-01, C-04) Partially Concur. This recommendation is under consideration.

R07: A duress (panic) alarm should be installed at the BOS Chairman's position. (C-01, C-04) Concur. Duress alarms are already in place at the Chairman's seat as well as the Clerk of the Board's seat.

R18: The Clerk and Recorder should coordinate security planning and operations with GSA. (C-05, C-06) Concur. GSA has previously implemented this recommendation. All County Clerk and Recorder staff attend mandatory Workplace Security Training every two years. GSA and the County Clerk's Office continue to coordinate security planning and operations in response to planned demonstrations by outside groups at the Clerk and Recorder's Office. GSA regularly monitors all video signals from the seven cameras in the County Clerk's Office main floor offices

R19: The fourth floor of the HOA should have secured access. (C-01) Concur. A number of initiatives have been under consideration to enhance the security of the executive offices on the fourth floor. These include the installation of additional card readers placed at strategic locations, strategically placed cameras, and improved visitor control and routing that will keep general visitors off that floor. This work is expected to be completed by GSA in February 2009. The foyer/lobby to the County Executive Office (CEO) should be

R20: monitored by a security camera. (C-01) Concur. GSA is currently implementing this project as part of the initiatives discussed in R-19 above.

R21: The entrance door to the interior office space of the CEO's lobby should be locked during normal business hours. (C-01) Do Not Concur. Will not be required once all initiatives are completed as discussed in R-19 above.

R22: A duress (panic) alarm should be installed in the reception lobby of the CEO's office. (C-01) Concur. Such an alarm is currently installed in the reception lobby of the office.

R23: A security camera should be installed in the inner reception lobby of the BOS offices. (C-01) Concur. Such a camera will be part of the initiatives discussed in R-19 above.

R24: A duress (panic) alarm should be installed in each BOS office. (C-01 Concur. Such alarms are currently installed in each BOS office within the Hall of Administration. A centralized notification system should be implemented to

R25: simultaneously alert all employees of critical incidents in each building of the GC. (C-04 through C-06) Concur. A public address system, capable of broadcasting live and/or pre- recorded messages, already exists for all public access buildings at the Government Center.

R26: County departments headed by an elected official, such as the TTPG and the Clerk and Recorder, should have a representative attend the bi-monthly County Physical Security Council meetings. (C-04, C-05) Concur. A letter of invitation drafted by the Council Chair and been sent by GSA to the Treasurer/Tax Collector, Clerk/Recorder, and the Auditor-Controller.

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