Ventura County 2014-2015 - California Grand Jury Reports

June 12, 2015 — Ventura County Hiring Processes

24 pages 33 findings 3 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 33 findings

F01: The County’s 28 agencies and departments are so highly diverse that managing their multifaceted human resources responsibilities is extremely complicated and demanding. (FA-04, FA-06, FA-07, FA-09, FA-10, FA-11, FA-12, FA-14, FA-15, FA-16)

F02: The County’s HRD is well structured and organized to carry out its complex recruiting/hiring functions. (FA-06, FA-07, FA-08, FA-09, FA- 10, FA-11, FA-12, FA-13, FA-14, FA-15, FA-16, FA-17, FA-18, FA-19, FA-20, FA-21) 12 Ventura County Hiring Processes

F03: The County has sufficient and effective policies and procedures in place to prevent noticeable favoritism and nepotism in the recruiting and hiring of employees. Therefore, the County appears to be protected against such events as the nepotism-related exam cheating reported by the Los Angeles Times about the Los Angeles County Fire Department in fall 2014. (FA-13, FA-14, FA-23, FA-24, FA-25, FA-26, FA-28, FA-30)

F04: The County’s posted HR information is clear and complete, especially regarding the application and testing procedures, with helpful instructions and test-taking advice for new applicants. (FA-06, FA-22)

F05: The County’s structured and consistent hiring process is intended to avoid the fact and appearance of any bias, thereby tending to preclude legal actions based on alleged discrimination. Sometimes, however, such a tightly structured process results in bypassing well-qualified candidates. This clearly happens in Fire Department lotteries, and it can also occur if minimum qualifications are very narrowly worded (see FI-06). (FA-05, FA-06, FA-13, FA-14, FA-22, FA-23, FA-24, FA- 25, FA-26, FA-27, FA-28)

F06: Establishing minimum qualifications is a critical step in the recruiting/hiring process, because an entity’s satellite HR staff or its central HR analyst will use these qualifications to cull ineligible candidates from all the applications received. Hiring authorities and other SMEs do not review applications until a candidate is a finalist. In preparing job descriptions, which include minimum qualifications, hiring authorities are often asked to list qualifications of the “ideal” candidate as opposed to the “acceptable” candidate. If these qualifications are not carefully worded, viable candidates may be excluded. Some potentially good hires do not get through the application-screening step because qualifications are too narrowly expressed. For example: “Must have Lean Six Sigma experience” could exclude applicants with similar “Quality Circles” experience; “Must have public-sector management experience” could eliminate excellent managers from the private sector. Such equivalent or supplemental experience is not considered if core qualifications are not met. (FA-14, FA-21)

F07: Other rules intended to prevent bias mandate that the same person cannot take part in more than one of three crucial steps: helping to prepare the oral exam, rating the oral exam, or serving on the hiring- interview panel. This can mean that the person who knows the job best—often the one who has been performing it—has very limited input. Especially for technical/specialized positions, such restricted participation by the key SME may constitute a major challenge to hiring the best candidate. (FA-05, FA-06, FA-14, FA-23) Ventura County Hiring Processes 13

F08: The HRD has committed to continuous process improvement and “Service Excellence.” The County’s Strategic Plan reflects this commitment. Some HR analysts and managers have taken Lean Six Sigma courses and applied the process to recruitment and hiring with impressive success. (FA-31, FA-32, FA-33, FA-34)

F09: Limited public knowledge of available student-worker positions gives a possible advantage to those who manage to become aware of them. Over time student workers can acquire on-the-job training, agency contacts who can be used as references, and knowledge of the hiring process. This can benefit them when applying for future posted positions. (FA-29) Recommendations

F10: Nine County agencies/departments contain decentralized (satellite) HR departments with at least one full-time, dedicated HR employee:  Department of Child Support Services  District Attorney 4 Ventura County Hiring Processes  Fire Protection District  General Services Agency  Human Services Agency  Information Technology Services  Public Defender  Resource Management Agency  Sheriff’s Department

F11: A central HR analyst, assigned to each County entity, assists with its HR activities, whether the entity has a full satellite HR department or a single individual—such as an administrative assistant—whose responsibilities may include handling some HR-related tasks. Central HR analysts perform many functions for their designated agencies/departments. In addition to recruitment or recruitment oversight, they also determine job classifications (e.g., Engineering Manager I–III, Legal Management Assistant I–IV) and compensation ranges; screen applications for completeness and minimum qualifications; and advise hiring authorities on compliance with Civil Service rules and MOAs with unions. They collaborate on questions to be included in competitive exams and interviews. They give final approval of the competitive test(s) selected. They arrange for basic background checks, although certain agencies (e.g., Fire Department, Sheriff’s Office) do additional checks on their own. Central HR analysts are usually assigned to assist a number of agencies/departments at a time; assignments are periodically rotated as a way to spread experience. In addition to recruiting/hiring functions, HR analysts provide personnel training and benefits services, oversee the Employee Assistance Program, and carry out special projects, with some tasks in the areas of labor relations and discipline.

F12: A total of 44 employees work in the nine decentralized HR departments. Central HR analysts play a significant role in the personnel functions of all County agencies/departments; however, the nine decentralized HR departments have a good deal of independent authority. For example, they may choose to personally review applications or automate the review—a decision that frequently depends on the number of applications. They consult with the hiring authority on what kinds of tests to administer (e.g., oral, written, skills) and may choose to develop their own questions working with SMEs, use a test from the HR test bank, or rent a test from an outside vendor—although their central analyst gives final approval of the test(s) selected. Ventura County Hiring Processes 5

F13: A source from outside central HR said, in effect, that the recruiting and hiring process is designed to be structured and consistent and has so many reviews, the public can trust the process.

F14: Major steps in the County’s open recruiting and hiring process are given below. (They are not always performed in this order.)  The hiring authority and hiring supervisor (if different) review and/or write a job description. They confer with their assigned central HR analyst to do a job-specific analysis and establish minimum qualifications (also called “employment standards”). SMEs from the hiring department and elsewhere often help with these initial steps, especially if the position to be filled is a technical one. This procedure is usually done each time a position becomes vacant, unless there have been no significant changes. Some minimum qualifications may be set by outside agencies, e.g., the DNA Advisory Board sets standards for laboratory technical leaders.  The hiring agency/department submits a position requisition to central HR.  The position posting is entered on the County’s “Employment Opportunities” webpage, which uses NeoGov personnel software to allow hiring authorities and applicants to track the steps of the process. Hard-copy lists of job opportunities are available at the HRD lobby desk in the County Hall of Administration and at other agencies Countywide. Open recruitments may be advertised in newspapers and/or professional journals as well.  The length of time applications are accepted varies. Some recruitments may be open for only one or two days due to a consistently high volume of applications; in that case, deadlines are posted with job descriptions and application instructions. Some recruitments are “continuous,” meaning they may close at any time the number of applicants is deemed sufficient. Specialized satellite recruitments—for example, for a clinical lab analyst—can go on for a year or more. An average recruitment is about two weeks.  The hiring unit’s central HR analyst or its own satellite HR department conducts a thorough application screening, checking for completeness and a match with the approved minimum qualifications. The screening includes a review of requested evidence such as a diploma, license, or typing certificate.  Hiring authorities working with HR analysts decide on a competitive examination or examinations, which may be oral, written, physical, and/or skills based/practical. These exams may be produced in house with input from SMEs or acquired by renting or purchasing them from companies recognized as SMEs. They are generic, knowledge-based exams administered by central or 6 Ventura County Hiring Processes satellite HR to applicants who successfully complete application screening. To pass the exam(s), a score of 70% or higher is required on each part. [Ref-06]  For an oral examination, HR designates a rating panel. Panel members must be in the same or higher earning classification as the position being filled. An SME for the panel may be drawn from the department’s own members (with approval of the hiring authority). SMEs may also be drawn from a County agency in a related field, former managers/directors of the hiring department/ agency, or other resources.  The panel conducts the oral examination using prepared questions approved by the designated central HR analyst. Candidates receive ratings based on a detailed standard grid.  Central HR generates an “eligible list” of those who pass the screening and competitive exam(s). Candidates’ placement, or “ranking,” on the list is based on their final examination score(s). Permanent regular County employees get five points added to their final score; military veterans get similar preference points. No more than five preference points are given to any one person.  HR provides the hiring authority with the names of all applicants (minimum of three) in the highest ranking. If the hiring authority rejects these candidates, with suitable justification, she or he is offered the names of those who are in the next-highest ranking, and so on.  A second panel—the hiring (or selection) panel, which includes nondepartmental members—holds a hiring interview for the finalists. This interview is more open ended and conversational than the oral exam.  The hiring agency/department is responsible for checking the candidates’ professional references.  The hiring panel makes the final decision on whom to hire and informs HR in writing of the reasons for selecting that candidate and not others who were interviewed.  After a candidate is selected, the unit’s HR analyst arranges for a routine background check.  New hires enter a probationary period with a performance review scheduled after six months or a year.  Candidates not selected remain on an eligible list, usually for six months to one year. [Ref-05, Ref-06, Ref-09, Ref-11] (Att-01)

F15: Central HR maintains ongoing eligible lists for different types of applicants who have already been “certified”—gone through Ventura County Hiring Processes 7 application screening and competitive testing. These eligible lists are made available to the hiring agency/department as another source of candidates. [Ref-05, Ref-06] (Att-01)

F16: Since the County favors internal recruiting, HR seeks interested people in other County agencies/departments who have “equivalent” (transferrable) skills and abilities. Even with strong internal candidates, however, central HR or a satellite HR department might elect to do an open recruitment to expand the candidate pool. [Ref-06]

F17: Standardized positions, e.g., administrative assistants, automatically go through internal Countywide recruitment, which includes being certified. [Ref-06] (Att-01)

F18: Promotional recruitments for positions that require specialized skills only useful to certain agencies/departments are selected by agency/ department recruitment and/or Countywide recruitment. Applicants for these positions generally go through all the steps listed in FA-14. [Ref-06] (Att-01)

F19: A position may also be filled by transfer (or “lateral transfer”). The Personnel Rules and Regulations adopted by County supervisors define “transfer” as “a change from one public agency to another or from one department to another in the same or similar classifications. It is also a change from one class to a similar class within a department or agency.” [Ref-06] (Att-01)

F20: For lateral transfers and promotional recruitments, a candidate’s past job performance may be considered, along with documented job- related life experience and continuing education. Applicants may be asked to bring their last three performance reviews, though not all positions or departments require this. [Ref-06]

F21: The hiring authority typically serves as the “point person” for the recruiting/hiring process: writing or cowriting the job description, specifying minimum qualifications, suggesting raters for the first interview, reviewing applications of certified candidates, taking part in the final hiring interview, and jointly making the final selection.

F22: The County’s HR website includes full instructions, test-taking advice for new applicants, an HR number to call for application materials or answers to recruitment questions, and a toll-free applicant support phoneline for problems that may arise while filling out an online application. Applicants may review the status of their submitted application(s) at any time by visiting the GovernmentJobs.com website. [Ref-09, Ref-11]

F23: The HRD, following policies in the Personnel Rules and Regulations, places great emphasis on avoiding conflict of interest and keeping the recruiting/hiring/promoting process as fair and unbiased as possible. Examples: 8 Ventura County Hiring Processes  The articles of the Personnel Rules and Regulations covering recruitment, application, and testing all contain sections on nondiscrimination. [Ref-06]  Central HR analysts coach interview-panel members on “the 10 no- no’s” of questions—no asking about age, sexual preference, ancestry, or anything else not related to the ability to perform a specific job function.  No one who assists in preparing examination questions may also serve as a scorer/rater for that examination. This is intended to ensure that test preparers do not write questions that will be beneficial or detrimental to any particular candidate. [Ref-06]  All oral examinations use the same preapproved questions and the same rating grid. Panel members are instructed not to answer questions from candidates nor to ask additional questions, since this could give one candidate a chance to excel or fall short that other candidates would not have.  No more than one employee from the hiring agency/department may participate as a rater in an oral examination. This is intended to guard against bias that might stem from a shared work culture. [Ref-06]  The same person (e.g., the hiring authority or an SME) cannot serve on both the oral exam and the hiring interview panels. This gives candidates a greater chance of different perspectives and less chance of having one person’s opinion dominate the selection process. [Ref-06]  No interview panel member can be a relative of the person being interviewed. Friends and close acquaintances are asked to recuse themselves.  No appointing authority can hire or supervise (directly or indirectly) a member of her/his immediate family. [Ref-06]  Applicants for entry-level positions in the Fire Department are so numerous (up to 3,000 in a recruitment for one academy class), a lottery system is used to ensure that opportunities are spread equally through the candidate pool—even though this inevitably bypasses some of those who might make equally good or better hires than those selected.  Women and diverse cultural groups are not given additional points on eligible lists, which would be equivalent to Affirmative Action. (Affirmative Action was outlawed by the State in 1996.) Instead, the County prepares, approves, posts online, and implements an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan. The current plan covers 2014- 2016. [Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-16, Ref-17, Ref-18, Ref-19] Ventura County Hiring Processes 9 Positions with the Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) are so coveted that as many as 3,000 applicants may apply each time a recruitment is posted. (Photo courtesy of VCFD)

F24: The County makes frequent outreach efforts to recruit women and cultural groups that reflect the makeup of the County’s residents. In the Employee Section of the County’s Strategic Plan, Objective 4 states: “Identify areas of underrepresentation of people of color and women and outline the action steps necessary to increase their representation in those areas where they are significantly under- represented.” Objective 5 reads: “Assess the County’s advertising strategy to ensure that all avenues for reaching diverse communities are utilized.” [Ref-06, Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-16, Ref- 18, Ref-19]

F25: Central HR analysts advise against nepotism, though no regulations prohibit County employees from hiring a relative of another County employee. All the investigation’s sources agreed that nepotism is not a significant factor in the County. [Ref-06, Ref-20, Ref-21]

F26: When a cultural group protested about County at-will applicants not being given examinations, the County began to test them, even though doing so is not required.

F27: Nationwide, the number of lawsuits based on alleged discrimination in employment, including recruiting and hiring, is escalating. “The 10 Ventura County Hiring Processes EEOC’s statistics about employment discrimination continue to demonstrate a three year trend of increased charge filing and litigation. Driven by the dismal economy, a bigger EEOC enforcement budget, and employee-friendly revisions to EEO laws, the employment discrimination lawsuit trend is expected to continue… U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) statistics reveal that the highest number of employment discrimination charges in its 45 year history were filed in the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2010…[T]he average single claimant lawsuit results in defense costs of $250,000 and a jury verdict of $200,000. Other sources place the average verdict awards even higher, at nearly $900,000 in 2007, with the average settlement nearly $550,000….” Though the total of charges filed has dipped since 2010’s record, to 88,778 in 2014, the long-term trend is steadily upward. [Ref-18, Ref- 19, Ref-20, Ref-21]

F28: One way for an entry-level job seeker to gain an edge on the competition is to be hired as a student worker. These positions are not posted nor advertised; students hear about them from a friend, relative, County employee, or college outreach programs conducted by individual agencies/departments.

F29: The County has a Civil Service Commission with an established mission: “To protect the rights of civil service employees and to maintain the integrity of the Civil Service System by serving as an independent and impartial ruling body charged with conducting disciplinary appeal hearings and ruling on matters relating to unfair labor practices, discrimination complaints, examination appeals, and employee representation issues.” The Commission’s website includes an established procedure for complaints about examinations (oral or written), favoritism, denials of promotions, and so on. Complaint procedures are also spelled out in the County’s Personnel Rules and Regulations. [Ref-06, Ref-13]

F30: Goals for the HRD, like other major County agencies/departments, are included and measured as part of the 2011–2016 Ventura County Strategic Plan, 2014 Update. Under the plan heading “County Workforce,” three goals are listed:  “Attract, hire, develop and retain an effective, diverse, professional, dedicated and responsive team of employees.”  “Empower employees at every level to provide county services with maximum effectiveness and efficiency.”  “Develop employees to become leaders who promote ethics, innovation, service, accountability and peak performance.” [Ref-14] Ventura County Hiring Processes 11

F31: The HRD regularly shares “best practices” with other Human Resources professionals by participating in a Statewide coalition of HR personnel from all 58 counties, a Southern California HR professional group, and the California Public Employers Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA).

F32: Lean Six Sigma methodology has been used intermittently on the County’s recruiting/hiring procedures. For example, a Kaizen event done for the requisition step in one County agency/department reduced process time from an average of 34 days down to 7 days.

F33: Central HR’s goal is to conduct 80% of recruitments in under 35 days (from opening the recruitment to generating the preference list). At the time of this investigation, that figure stood at 92%. Public-safety positions (e.g., police officers, firefighters) take longer because of additional background checks. On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, the Board of Supervisors recognized 16 employees who have at least 25 years of service with the County. Years: Steven W. Buckley; Kathryn Connell; Rosemary Downs; Marisela Gonzalez; Estela Guillen; Corina Velasquez Lozano; Ana McCubbin; Hoang Meyer; Ellen Reed and Claudia Reyes. Years: Phil Garcia; Francisca Ocampo and Leticia Robinson. Years: Lydia A. Rillo Aguilar; Rosario Rodriguez and E. Christina Valenzuela. (County photo used by permission) F indings

June 11, 2015 — Ventura County Electronic Health Record Implementation Risks

22 pages 51 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 51 findings

F01: The Grand Jury found that after Go-Live a significant level of concern was raised by clinical staff to IT regarding potential impacts of observed EHR- related risks on patient well-being. (FA-27, FA-37, FA-42, FA-43, FA-44)

F02: The Grand Jury found systemic deficiencies in the process used by VCHCA to develop and vet the adequacy of the EHR project requirements specification. For example:  The “number of simultaneous users” specification was clearly developed using an inadequate analysis strategy, and the specification reasonableness was not validated by appropriate independent EHR SMEs.  A performance requirement for a maximum window update time was not developed. VCHCA failed to develop a mutually agreeable 12 Ventura County EHR System Implementation Risks specification with Cerner in the contract, as part of an EHR acceptance requirement.  VCHCA did not have an effective mechanism to gauge the comprehensiveness and quality of the EHR implementation and its test development process.  VCHCA did not specify the minimum required FTE staffing level that IT/Informatics management and an independent EHR SME agreed was both necessary and sufficient to fully accomplish the goals of the project. Without this staffing it was not possible to conduct rigorous testing in the time period specified by the Cerner Event Driven Project file. (FA-02, FA-05, FA-09, FA-10, FA-17, FA-26)

F03: The Grand Jury found no evidence that project requirements were formally specified, which precluded generating a complete and quantifiable test plan to verify overall EHR quality throughout the Implementation stage. The actual project was guided primarily by untestable goals to meet the federal Stage 1 attestation. (FA-02, FA-17, FA-22, FA-41, FA-42)

F04: The Grand Jury found no effective independent review of the EHR project before the release of the RFP, before contract signing, nor continuing periodically during the course of the project. Such an independent review would include SMEs from outside the VCHCA who have EHR Implementation experience and also clinical staff with experience in the VCHCA. (FA-02, FA-05, FA-17, FA-28, FA-29)

F05: The Grand Jury found that the lack of an effective Risk Management Plan resulted in significant impact on project quality and cost. Developing and maintaining such a plan would have exposed potential problems and triggered mitigations that could have avoided or lessened the undesirable consequences. For example, training did not satisfactorily address learning retention losses with timely hands-on refresher courses using an EHR domain and more robust training materials. Nor did it adequately stress the importance of accuracy using discipline-specific examples of correct vs. incorrect situations (e.g., data entry accuracy). (FA-03, FA-10, FA-17, FA- 27, FA-39, FA-46)

F06: The Grand Jury found that EHR project execution was directed solely by the Cerner Event Driven Methodology and key events and dates in the Cerner Microsoft Project file—to the exclusion of other important VCHCA- specific considerations. The EHR Implementation had significant undis- covered problems at Go-Live caused by issues such as: the inflexible July 1, 2013 Go-Live date; the 14-month integration schedule; the lack of slack in the schedule; and the lack of documented testable requirements before proceeding to the next stage. As a consequence, waiting to address residual quality issues (e.g., software bugs) until after Go-Live made patient care more challenging in the interim. However, due to alert staff, Ventura County EHR Implementation Risks 13 temporary workarounds were developed to maintain patient care standards. (FA-12, FA-13, FA-22, FA-26, FA-43)

F07: The Grand Jury found that, by failing to have quantitative data to predict impacts on the Go-Live date, project management was unable to convince VCHCA administration to support the project staffing levels and ordering dates of materials necessary to deliver an operationally acceptable product. EHR project management did not utilize industry-accepted best practices project management techniques (e.g., PMI) for project planning and quantitative reporting of VCHCA labor and material schedules, nor for status against those schedules. (FA-12, FA-13, FA-14, FA-15, FA-24, FA- 26, FA-28, FA-29, FA-31, FA-32, FA-33, FA-36, FA-37, FA-38, FA-39, FA- 40, FA-41, FA-42, FA-48, FA-49)

F08: The Grand Jury found that VCHCA research and ITC status reports both indicated a shortage of personnel assigned to the EHR project. However, VCHCA and ITC failed to take the necessary and timely corrective action. (FA-26, FA-28, FA-29)

F09: The Grand Jury found that VCHCA failed to develop a project plan to reflect VCHCA staffing hours and resources necessary to integrate with the Cerner production schedule. (FA-13) Recommendations

F10: Cerner would not agree to any requirement on window update time in the contract. Most clinical staff users consider any update time exceeding 2 to 3 seconds unacceptable because it affects concentration and degrades productivity. [Ref-04]

F11: After agreeing on terms and conditions, Cerner and the County negotiated Cerner Contract No. 6433 for development of the VCHCA EHR project. [Ref- 04, Ref-10]

F12: The contract required Cerner to develop a “Work Plan” that would describe mutual expectations and work to be performed by Cerner and VCHCA during the EHR delivery. The Cerner Work Plan was supposed to contain detailed information, including but not limited to schedule, tasks, estimates, durations, deliverables, critical events, task dependencies, resource assignments, specifications, and payment schedules. No provision of the Cerner EHR contract limited VCHCA to exclusively use the Cerner Work Plan for managing VCHCA labor and/or material. [Ref-04]

F13: The Work Plan Cerner delivered during the course of the project was documented in a Microsoft Project file. This file was described by VCHCA as reflecting the Cerner “Event Driven” Project Management Methodology. Cerner Event Driven Project files contain only Cerner-owned tasks, with scheduling and manpower loading. They do not contain any VCHCA labor hours. The key event in the schedule was the project Go-Live milestone of July 1, 2013. VCHCA’s project manager was expected to ensure that VCHCA maintain this schedule in order to qualify for the financial incentives of HITECH Stage 1 Meaningful Use. [Ref-03, Ref-04] Upon examining the Cerner Microsoft Project file for “Implementation” Phase 1 of the EHR project—spanning the time period from “contract signing” (October 2011) through “end of maintenance” (October 2013)— the Grand Jury observed that:  Cerner did not “populate” the project file with any VCHCA labor tasks or hours.  VCHCA did not augment the project file with its own staff resources and tasks. Ventura County EHR Implementation Risks 5  VCHCA did not create any independent project plan for the VCHCA staffing resources and tasks.

F14: As indicated in VCHCA’s response to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury report “Healthcare Records Processes and Procedures,” VCHCA EHR Implementation resources were coordinated to link up with key-event dates specified in Cerner’s Event Driven Project plan (e.g., Project Kick- Off, four trips to Kansas City, Unit & Integration Test, and Go-Live deadline). The Cerner project file provided a list of milestones and expected dates that VCHCA had to meet to achieve the established Go-Live date. [Ref-05]

F15: Throughout the Implementation period, VCHCA management and staff status reporting was handled at weekly or as-needed staff meetings. Project management coordination between Cerner and VCHCA was handled at weekly or as-needed teleconferences or in-person meetings.

F16: All County IT projects must receive the approval of the ITC for large projects and purchases. The ITC requires the project sponsor to complete the Automation Project Assessment Questionnaire (APAQ). This document outlines the project description, scope, objectives, risk assessment, outcome, and measurements for success. The APAQ form can be found on the County Forms & Policy (F&P) Intranet website.

F17: The October 3, 2011 APAQ for the Cerner EHR project presented to the ITC identified three goals, one measurement for success, and a minimal risk assessment.  Goal 1: To replace VCHCA’s clinical record system with a single system that complies with the HITECH provision of ARRA  Goal 2: To automate and integrate the patient accounting and supply chain management with the new clinical record system  Goal 3: To automate and integrate billing and claim management for leveraging information across the County  Measurement: The single measure of this project’s success would be achieving its first “attestation” in accordance with federal requirements under the “Stage 1 Meaningful Use” criteria by September 1, 2013.  Risk assessment: Risk would be limited to the loss of federal reimbursement allocations and the issuance of fines if the project was not started by January 1, 2012, and completed by September 1, 2013.

F18: On October 4, 2011, the BOS approved $32 million to acquire the Cerner EHR system. This appropriation did not include provisions for computer hardware, staffing, or medical hardware, which were to be determined at a later time and funded out of VCHCA’s operating budget. [Ref-10]

F19: As indicated in VCHCA’s response to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury report “Healthcare Records Processes and Procedures,” Cerner was responsible for system design and acquisition of the Ventura-based server farm and 6 Ventura County EHR System Implementation Risks some Cerner-specific end-user hardware. VCHCA was responsible for generic end-user hardware such as workstations, laptops, barcode scanners, and printers. [Ref-05]

F20: Cerner performed the overall EHR system design based on VCHCA’s parameters (i.e., 600 simultaneous users, 56 Solutions, 2 hospitals, 40 clinics, and a Ventura-hosted server farm). [Ref-05, Ref-09]

F21: EHR Project Kick-Off for VCHCA was originally planned by Cerner for month three of the contract timeline (January 2012) but did not happen until May 2012 (month seven)—a four-month schedule slip.

F22: During the EHR Implementation Phase 1, Cerner was responsible for the EHR “Build” process that customized the basic Cerner framework to implement the specific VCHCA workflow. Cerner Clinical Strategists—working in conjunction with VCHCA-selected analysts, SME staff who were familiar with the workflow (operating as Informatics personnel in training), and VCHCA-hired contractors—were primarily engaged with Implementation tasks. Implementation involved describing, modifying, and improving the hospital and clinic workflows using formatted Cerner Design Control Worksheets (DCWs). Implementation also involved reviewing interim functionality and testing for correct Build functionality and accuracy.

F23: VCHCA had three methods to get the staff needed for the Implementation: 1) share existing VCHCA staff; 2) share personnel from County IT staff; and 3) hire outside contractors.

F24: In December 2011 VCHCA recognized the need to hire contract staff to help meet staffing requirements. In July 2012 (month nine of the original timeline) the BOS approved hiring requested contract staff. [Ref-12]

F25: The HITECH Act, by requiring a short compliance period and offering enticing grant subsidies, reduced the pool of available qualified Informatics personnel. VCHCA and all other hospital and clinic institutions and EHR providers (including Cerner) were competing nationwide to secure needed Informatics staff. This situation complicated VCHCA’s ability to recruit and hire qualified EHR talent.

F26: VCHCA did not provide sufficient analyst and SME staff to meet scheduled key dates:  Many other comparable-size Cerner customer institutions employ over 50 Informatics support staff.  Cerner’s original estimate for VCHCA’s labor for Implementation was 31.5 experienced Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff (analysts and SMEs). [Ref-04]  The APAQ for the EHR stated that approximately 30 dedicated clinical analysts would be needed. [Ref-11] Ventura County EHR Implementation Risks 7  VCHCA provided on average 24 FTE staff to support Phase 1 Implementation: o 14 full-time VCHCA staff (=14 FTE) o 22 part-time “borrowed” VCHCA staff (=5 FTE) o 5 full-time contractors (=5 FTE)  VCHCA management and staff did not have prior hands-on experience with Cerner system Solutions Implementation, Build, or Maintenance.  Limiting staffing to less than Cerner-recommended and IT-requested levels helped VCHCA hold down costs. It also delayed efforts to identify and fix EHR quality issues (e.g., “bugs”) until after Go-Live.

Related Recommendations (1)

R04: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the VCHCA to establish an Informatics Department with appropriate full-time staffing to satisfy the needs for maintenance and future upgrades of the VCHCA EHR. To be effective in this role, the Informatics Department should 14 Ventura County EHR System Implementation Risks report directly to clinical VCHCA management to ensure that patient care is always given proper clinical concern and priority. (FI-02, FI-03)

F27: Since Go-Live VCHCA has had a chronic shortage of available Report Writers. Report Writers are skilled in the extraction of data from the EHR database and producing formatted reports and statistics needed by various healthcare departments. VCHCA staff found that many of the stock Cerner reports did not produce the statistics or data needed by requesting departments. In March 2015 VCHCA had a backlog of over 35 reports. A typical report takes four to eight weeks to create.

Related Recommendations (1)

F28: Throughout the EHR Implementation in 2012 and 2013, the required ITC quarterly Project Status Reports indicated the following concerns (without quantitative supporting backup):  The project experienced delays with the design of a few modules due to lack of personnel allocations. Additional staff would have been needed to make up the lost time.  Delays in approval for additional staff impacted the ability to meet milestones for the design phase.

F29: Neither ITC nor VCHCA took corrective action regarding the risks resulting from staff shortages and the related consequences as documented in the quarterly ITC reports.

Related Recommendations (1)

R05: The Grand Jury recommends that, for any future capital projects of the VCHCA, the Board of Supervisors assign to the ITC the responsibility and authority to: regularly monitor achievement of stated project goals; ensure compliance with the approved project process; enforce utilization of quantitative data to measure project progress; identify problems; and assure that prompt corrective action is taken. (FI-03, FI-04, FI-05, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09) Responses Responses required from: Ventura County Board of Supervisors (FI-02, FI-03, FI-04, FI-05, FI-06, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09) (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05) Responses requested from: County of Ventura, County Executive Officer (FI-02, FI-03, FI-04, FI-05, FI-06, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09) (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05) Ventura County Health Care Agency (FI-02, FI-03, FI-04, FI-05, FI-06, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09) (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04)

F30: VCHCA did not perform simulated or actual load testing before Go-Live. Testing could possibly have exposed storage capacity limitations, response time problems, and other limitations in the EHR system.

F31: Beginning at Go-Live on July 1, 2013, and for several weeks thereafter, much of the staff had difficulty logging into the EHR system to access patient records. To overcome this situation VCHCA had to rapidly purchase and install an additional 600 Citrix licenses and triple the number of servers in the server farm by July 30, 2013. VCHCA acknowledged this situation was a direct result of underestimating the number of simultaneous users at 600. [Ref-05, Ref-09]

F32: After adding the 600 Citrix licenses and tripling the servers in July 2013, a new problem became apparent and lingered until VCHCA abandoned its Ventura server farm and switched to Cerner Remote Hosting (RHO) in April 8 Ventura County EHR System Implementation Risks 2015. The new problem was that the “Order Entry” window response time, initially several minutes, was intolerable for most users. One of the causes was system design limitations in the server farm (e.g., the Storage Area Network [SAN] did not have enough ports) due to VCHCA’s underestimating the number of simultaneous users.

F33: Both VCHCA’s and Cerner’s system administrators managed to speed up response time slightly while the EHR was still hosted in Ventura by adjusting system software parameters. However, they were never able to get response time to acceptable levels. VCHCA decided not to pursue further hardware upgrades to the server farm in Ventura. Instead servers and server support were switched to Kansas City by purchasing Cerner’s RHO option.

F34: For six months after Go-Live, there were occasional planned and unplanned downtimes when the EHR network would be unavailable. During such intervals clinical staff had to temporarily revert to paper recordkeeping and then enter the paper information into the EHR when it came back online.

F35: To protect against an outage of the EHR, Cerner has the capability to periodically backup patient records (e.g., medication prescribed/ administered, lab results) “locally” in the hospitals, independent of the central EHR server farm. These backup “724 systems” are read-only to be used for retrieval of recent patient records during a system outage. At Go- Live, these 724 systems had not been configured and activated. After the Go-Live date, over a period of several months, thirty 724 systems were deployed by IT at strategic locations throughout the hospitals.

F36: The Wi-Fi network at the Ventura County Medical Center was not adequately assessed and tested before Go-Live. The network experienced intermittent problems beginning at Go-Live and for several months thereafter. This condition interfered with staff productivity and led to frustration.

F37: VCHCA personnel discovered that the standard Cerner-formatted prescription label did not contain all the content/dosage information that the compounding pharmacist and administering nurse needed. This deficiency and many other issues considered high priority by hospital staff were duly reported to the Help Desk and to management as patient care issues. The Pharmacy label format issue was not resolved for nine months.

F38: Before hardware was ordered, focus groups were used to gauge end-user hardware preferences. At these sessions, selected staff got to view and touch a variety of end-user equipment, but the equipment was not tested in a live environment as it would be used in the hospital. Users did not have an opportunity to evaluate the hardware as it would be used in their normal work environment. For example, tablets were selected as a choice for nurses. But after Go-Live, nurses tried to use them for charting but found they were inappropriate for a variety of reasons (e.g., the charting area was too small with the current Cerner Solutions; the pop-up on-screen Ventura County EHR Implementation Risks 9 keyboard covered valuable chart area; battery life was only a couple of hours). The tablets had to be replaced with alternative hardware. In addition, the laptops with built-in scanners were focus group selected, but in practice with the EHR system they were impractical to use and had to be replaced. [Ref-09]

F39: The purchase requisitions for end-user hardware needed to support the EHR Go-Live event were forwarded to VCHCA administration in December 2012 by the VCHCA IT organization. But the end-user hardware was not ordered until May-June 2013. Thus a significant amount of equipment was unavailable to be properly configured and in place for staff to use for check-out and refresher training in their work environment before Go-Live.

F40: Due to inadequate planning, a significant number of workstations and tablets had to be ordered after Go-Live.

F41: At Go-Live, many of the computer printer assignments were incorrectly configured by IT technicians. Printouts were directed to out-of-area printers that potentially exposed critical data until the default destination printer was located and the printout picked up by the requester. It took many weeks to get all associated printer problems fixed.

F42: There were EHR Implementation related concerns regarding potential risks due to a variety of factors. Issues of concern included:  Due to the frequent early EHR instability, staff had to temporarily administer medical care without access to recent patient records; they had to fall back to handwritten paper recordkeeping; and then, retroactively, update the EHR when it became accessible again.  Saturation of EHR login capacity led to frequent staff login failure attempts, a condition that went unresolved during the first several weeks after Go-Live.  Frequent crashes of the EHR during first 6 months after Go-Live  Incomplete/inadequate/inconsistent data entry windows, order sentences, and pick-list choices used by physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare staff to select from in the various Solution charts  Sluggish response times for users launching/updating Solution window displays  Printer queues (particularly label printers used by the Pharmacy and Labs) frequently stalled and stopped printing labels. Pharmacy staff had to resort to handwriting labels—usually for several hours. On third shift or weekends, IT support was not readily available to fix the blockage. The handwritten labels used to work around EHR outages precluded the automatic checks normally performed by the EHR when verifying correct medication/patient administration. This situation was not resolved for over nine months after Go-Live when IT reconfigured printer servers in the server farm. Ventura County EHR System Implementation Risks

F43: While there are no reported incidents of harm to patients because of EHR problems, there are documented occasions that potentially could have put patients in danger if alert clinical staff had not taken corrective actions with workarounds.

F44: During the EHR Implementation, the communication paths within VCHCA’s organizational structure became ambiguous. IT problems involving patient care tended to be reported to IT personnel and may not have reached clinical management.

F45: Over 50,000 hours of EHR user training was provided over a four-month period to 3,000+ clinicians, ancillary, and support VCHCA staff. Typical training involved 12 to 16 hours of instruction and hands-on training spread over multiple sessions in nine dedicated training rooms. [Ref-05, Ref-09]

F46: The user training did not include competency testing before Go-Live. It was also noted that training did not satisfactorily address learning retention losses with timely hands-on refresher courses using an EHR domain and more robust training materials. Nor did it adequately stress the importance of accuracy using discipline-specific examples of correct vs. incorrect situations (e.g., data entry accuracy).

F47: Immediately after EHR Go-Live, many of the VCHCA staff were not comfortable using the system in spite of the training opportunities that had been provided and the availability of experts to help. Many users were confused and frustrated—a situation that was compounded by unplanned system downtime, slow window response time, and frequent failure of login attempts.

F48: Many factors contributed to patient billing problems associated with the EHR:  Some users did not consistently enter data correctly into Solution windows, which ultimately led to downstream uncollectable patient billing.  Beginning with Go-Live, much of the patient information used for billing by the EHR was not accurate. Many bills produced from the EHR were rejected by the “Scrubber” checking process and simply set aside to be looked at later for diagnosis and correction.  By second quarter 2014, the backlog of unresolved billing produced by the EHR was 9 to 10 months behind, due to rejected claims having incorrect/inconsistent/missing data on patient billing.  After a deep-dive analysis by VCHCA, the rejected claims were found to be due to a variety of problems, most notable being data entry issues such as: o Ineffectual training Ventura County EHR Implementation Risks 11 o Lack of attention by staff entering patient and treatment data into the EHR o Lack of proper supervisory oversight

F49: Diagnosis of the VCHCA’s billing issues was initially compounded by a variety of problems including:  A backlog of growing rejected billing  A lack of adequate staffing resources to correct the problems  Cerner “canned” report writing applications that produced inadequate visibility into the billing problems  A shortage of skilled staff to quickly develop new and more detailed diagnostic reports from the Cerner database

F50: Several insurance reimbursement entities such as Medi-Cal, Gold Coast, and private insurance companies limit the length of time allowed between patient treatments or discharge from the hospital until a medical provider submits accurate billing. Following the EHR Go-Live event, a significant portion of VCHCA billing claims had not been corrected within the time limit and were denied payment. As of March 2015, this potentially uncollectable amount may have exceeded millions of dollars. The VCHCA was reported to be in the process of trying to reduce this collections deficit.

F51: VCHCA successfully met the Stage 1 Meaningful Use requirements:  Both hospitals completed a successful 90-day attestation cycle on September 30, 2013.  148 eligible providers (99%) completed individual 90-day cycles by December 1, 2013. [Ref-09] Findings

June 05, 2015 — Foster Care and Adoption Process in Ventura County

14 pages 23 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 23 findings

F01: Foster care organizations each follow different practices. Therefore, foster parents receive different information and training dependent upon the authorizing entity. Due to the foster parents’ expectations and the reality of the HSA process, some foster parents become confused and disillusioned with foster care and adoption. (FA-10, FA-11, FA-12, FA-16, FA-17)

F02: When foster parents decide to adopt a child in their care, they don’t always know the processes involved, e.g., a home study, which can take six to eight months to complete. (FA-07, FA-08, FA-09, FA-10, FA-11, FA-12, FA-13, FA-23)

F03: Due to inadequate information on the adoption process, foster parents often have an expectation of being given priority when wanting to adopt the child in their care. (FA-06, FA-07, FA-09, FA-10, FA-11, FA-12) Foster Care and Adoption Process in Ventura County 5

F04: Inadequate communications among the foster parents, HSA, the Court, and private and religious organizations can result in foster parents sometimes not knowing the child’s status, nor their own, in the adoption process. (FA-12, FA-13, FA-19, FA-20, FA-21)

F05: Many nine-year-old children are not at the appropriate maturity level and therefore may not know what’s best for their welfare. A child’s input into adoption placement may be misleading. (FA-13) Recommendations

F06: If a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, “States are required to file a petition to terminate parental rights immediately and, concurrently to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified adoptive family….” [Ref-01]

F07: California’s fundamental law regarding foster care children requires family reunification. HSA’s top priority for foster care children is family reunification. [Ref-01, Ref-04]

F08: Even if the home is unstable, 95% of children in foster care want to go back to their biological parent(s).

F09: Next to reunification, adoption is a secondary or concurrent plan for foster care children. If the child cannot be returned to a biological parent and no other relative is available and can satisfy the adoption criteria, the foster Foster Care and Adoption Process in Ventura County 3 care parent has the option to move forward with adoption planning. [Ref-01, Ref-04]

F10: Foster parents sponsored by private and religious organizations, e.g., Arrow Child & Family Ministries, often lack necessary information on the process to adopt a foster child. [Ref-01, Ref-04, Ref-05, Ref-10]

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The Grand Jury recommends that the Human Services Agency work more closely with all foster care parents by providing training on how to adopt a child, including the processes necessary for adoption and actions needed to complete a home study. (FI-01, FI-02, FI-03)

F11: Some foster parents do not know HSA’s priorities on adoption. The foster parents’ goal is to “save a child.” HSA’s priority is the child’s welfare.

F12: Some foster parents have an expectation of adopting a foster child in their care.

F13: The Court allows foster children age nine and above (age established by County Counsel) input into adoption placement. The child often prefers a biological relative or a home with a similar cultural background. [Ref-13]

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct County Counsel to review the current age at which foster children are allowed input into the adoption process, raising it from age 9 to age 12. (FI-05) Responses Responses required from: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (FI-01, FI-03, FI-04, FI-05) (R-02, R-03) Responses requested from: Human Services Agency, County of Ventura (FI-01, FI-02, FI-03, FI-04) (R-01,

F14: From January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014, HSA finalized 253 adoptions. Of these, nonrelatives adopted 2 foster children; nonrelative foster parents adopted 124; and relatives adopted the remaining 127.

F15: All foster care homes utilized by HSA must be licensed. The State’s Community Care Licensing Division grants HSA the right to issue foster care licenses. [Ref-14]

F16: Steps to becoming a licensed foster parent through the County include 20 hours of preplacement training comprised of a 3-hour informational meeting and 17 hours of orientation and training. Private and religious organizations certify, not license, foster family homes. They do not have the same training requirements. [Ref-02, Ref-11, Ref-15]

F17: Additional foster care requirements include, but are not limited to:  Background check  Criminal clearance  Livescan fingerprinting  Home fire, health, and safety inspections  CPR/First Aid certification [Ref-12]

F18: The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 changed the background check process for all prospective foster families beginning January 1, 2008. It stated the following:  “A completed FBI criminal history check is now required prior to licensure or certification.”  “Any prospective foster parent or other adult in the home who has lived in another state in the past five years must have a completed out-of- state child abuse/neglect check prior to licensure, certification or approval.” [Ref-16] 4 Foster Care and Adoption Process in Ventura County

F19: HSA’s Children and Family Services Division interfaces with many organizations, including Casa Pacifica, CASA, the Court, and private and religious foster care agencies. These entities work in conjunction with the assigned County social worker, who must see the foster child at least every 30 days. [Ref-07]

F20: Sometimes there is a lack of communication between foster parents and supporting parties, e.g., private organizations and the Court.

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The Grand Jury recommends that the County of Ventura Board of Supervisors direct the HSA to work more closely with all other organizations involved in foster care and adoption to ensure there is communication and input from all parties concerned with the foster child. Foster parents’ input should be included in the Court proceedings, either by having them present or having HSA represent their interests. (FI-01, FI-03, FI-04)

F21: The role of the CASA is to advocate for the foster child and communicate with the assigned County social worker. “A CASA provides the court with carefully gathered information about how the child is doing while they are part of the dependency court system.” They also “offer children trust and advocacy during the complex legal proceedings. CASAs contact the child on a regular basis to observe and gather information about the child's well being. They encourage the child to express his or her own opinion and hopes while remaining objective observers. They explain to the child the events that are happening, the reasons they are court dependent, and the roles the judge, lawyers and social workers play.” The CASA does not have the privilege of access to the County foster care case records. The focus is placed on the child’s needs—not family dynamics or problem solving. [Ref-17]

F22: It was reported that adoption of a foster care child by a County social worker or CASA is a conflict of interest.

F23: HSA must complete a required home study prior to the foster parent adopting the child. The State-mandated HSA home study consists of interviews and completion of paperwork dealing with issues such as finances, health, employment, family of origin, and parenting. Documentation such as marriage certificates, divorce documents, military discharge, and child support information will be requested. The study takes six to eight months to complete. [Ref-18] Findings

June 04, 2015 — County Project Management – a Case Study

22 pages 25 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 25 findings

F01: The Grand Jury found that project management across the County is inconsistent in its use of ISO/PMI best practices even though the expertise and resources to employ those practices are available through ITS. The EHR project governance, as defined by PMI, should have begun with a qualified project manager and a County project plan as early as 2009, when the search for a qualified vendor began. It did not. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-04, FA-05, FA-06, FA-07, FA-08, FA-13, FA-14, FA-15)

F02: The Grand Jury found that the County maintained a website with PMI- compliant forms, policies, and procedures during the EHR project. Not all project managers were aware of the website’s existence and those who knew were not required to use any of the recommended procedures or documents. As of May 2015 no Countywide policy, applicable to all agencies, identifies required project management standards. Merely posting recommended templates and documents on a website is not a clearly stated policy. (FA-04, FA-05, FA-06, FA-07, FA-08)

F03: The EHR is an enterprise-level project based on its cost and its effect on other departments and agencies. Such effects include the integration with the County data network and the interface with the Auditor-Controller’s office. Enterprise projects require formal risk assessments prior to a project start date. The risk assessment documented and approved on the APAQ did not meet the level of detail expected for an enterprise-level project. By limiting risk assessment to federal incentive reimbursement and fines, the County ultimately failed to address the impact the system could have on patient safety; the daily workflow of doctors, nurses, lab technicians, pharmacists, billing, and registration; and the effect on VCHCA’s efficiency and profitability. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-12, FA-13, FA-14) 8 County Project Management – A Case Study

F04: Scheduled quarterly ITC status reports for the EHR project were infrequent and inadequate, allowing the project to expand in both scope/size and cost. Failure to have quantitative project status and Estimate at Completion (EAC) reports caused ITC, the governing group, to miss opportunities to identify problems and take corrective action throughout the EHR project. (FA-09, FA-10, FA-11, FA-13, FA-14, FA-23, FA-24)

F05: Information contained in the EHR project and plan documentation provided to the Grand Jury was incomplete and inaccurate and did not reflect effective project management. These documents did not accurately allocate or report the amount of time needed or spent on projects by County employees. They did not track the progress and cost of the individual tasks assigned to County resources. (FA-13, FA-14, FA-15)

F06: The Grand Jury found that County labor required for the EHR project, as documented in the APAQ, was severely underestimated and ultimately proved more costly than originally proposed. The Grand Jury could not accurately verify the labor hours and cost due to the tracking methodology employed during the project. (FA-13, FA-14, FA-15, FA-17, FA-19, FA-22, FA-23)

F07: VCHCA knew from its research and the ITC knew from its status reports that there was a shortage of County personnel assigned to the project, but both failed to take the necessary and timely corrective action. (FA-14, FA-25)

F08: VCHCA failed to develop a project plan to reflect the hours and resources necessary to integrate with the Cerner production schedule. (FA-01, FA-15, FA-16)

F09: The ITC allowed the adoption of an APAQ that gave priority to meeting a “Meaningful Use” date. Setting this priority distracted from establishing a PMI-compliant project plan. VCHCA adopted the vendor’s “Event Driven Methodology,” which covered Cerner’s production but did not integrate into any County plan. (FA-12)

F10: The ITC had no way to quantitatively measure successful completion of the APAQ goals. The project cannot be called complete until all outstanding substantive issues related to satisfaction of the APAQ goals are resolved and accurate project performance data is produced. (FA-12, FA-20, FA-23, FA-24)

Related Recommendations (2)

R05: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors assign to the ITC the responsibility and authority to regularly: monitor achievement of stated project goals; ensure compliance with the approved project process; enforce utilization of quantitative data to measure project progress; identify problems; and assure that prompt corrective action is taken. (FI-03, FI-04, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09)

R06: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the ITC to conduct post-mortem project reviews to determine “lessons learned” and publish the results in support of continuous process improvement. (FI-06, FI-07, FI-08, FI-11) Responses Responses required from: Board of Supervisors, Ventura County (FI-01, FI-02, FI-03, FI-04, FI-05, FI-06, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09, FI-10, FI–11) (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05, R-06) Auditor-Controller, Ventura County (FI-01, FI-03, FI-04, FI-05, FI-06, FI-08, FI-10, FI-11) (R-03, R-04) Responses requested from: County Executive Officer, Ventura County (FI-01, FI-02, FI-03, FI-04, F-05, FI-06, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09, FI-10, FI–11) (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05, R-06) Chief Information Officer, Ventura County (FI-01, FI-02, FI-03, FI-04, FI-05, FI-06, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09, FI-10, FI–11) (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05, R-06) 10 County Project Management – A Case Study

F11: From October 2011 through December 2014, the BOS authorized in excess of $71,000,000 for the EHR. County labor hours and other expenses not charged to the project, reimbursement for Cerner travel expenses, and losses from uncollectable billing ultimately will increase total costs to an amount not currently known. (FA-17, FA-20, FA-21, FA-23, FA-24) County Project Management – A Case Study 9 Recommendations

F12: The October 3, 2011 APAQ for the Cerner EHR project presented to the ITC identified three goals, one measurement for success, and a minimal risk assessment. County Project Management – A Case Study  Goal 1: To replace VCHCA’s clinical record system with a single system which complies with the HITECH provision of ARRA  Goal 2: To automate and integrate the patient accounting and supply chain management with the new clinical record system  Goal 3: To automate and integrate billing and claim management for leveraging information across the enterprise  Measurement: The single measure of this project’s success would be achieving its first attestation in accordance with federal requirements under the “Stage 1 Meaningful Use” (MU) criteria by September 1, 2013.  Risk assessment: Risk would be limited to the loss of federal reimbursement allocations and the issuance of fines if the project was not started by January 1, 2012, and completed by September 1, 2013.

F13: As indicated in its agenda, status reports on open projects need not be provided at ITC meetings unless requested by the ITC. Of those reports given, a quantitative assessment is not required. The reports reviewed for EHR were qualitative and thus could not be monitored with any metrics. They also failed to provide status for goals stated in the APAQ.

F14: Project status reports for Cerner presented to the ITC on October 18, 2012, January 9, 2013, April 11, 2013, and October 9, 2013, were primarily qualitative; i.e. no quantitative progress was provided which would support a performance-based prediction of total project costs at the completion date and a performance-based prediction of the completion date. All reports stated that there was a shortage of County labor and thus milestones would not be met.

F15: The Grand Jury requested all project files that demonstrate how the Cerner project was conducted, including activities that cover the pre-Cerner- installation plan, the Cerner integration efforts, and the planned post-“Go- Live” maintenance tasks. The Grand Jury only received and reviewed the following project plans created by Cerner:  Project file number one (submitted to the Grand Jury on January 21, 2015, as a Microsoft Project plan file), spanned the period from October 24, 2011 to September 30, 2013, and represented Phase 1 of the EHR System project implementation.  Project file number two (submitted to the Grand Jury on January 21, 2015, as a Microsoft Project file), spanned the period from August 26, 2013, to March 18, 2014, and represented Phase 2 of the EHR System project implementation.  Project file number three (submitted to the Grand Jury on January 21, 2015) spanned project period from “9/11/14 to 2/13/2014” [sic] and represented the project tasks to be completed, achieving “Federal Core Measures.” County Project Management – A Case Study 5  Project file number four (submitted to the Grand Jury on January 21, 2015) spans the period from March 1, 2014, to December 27, 2019, and includes Cerner implementation of the Cerner Remote Hosting option and maintenance. The plans reviewed did not have the PMI-required data for County labor needed to perform specific tasks. Resources such as equipment and labor for the project milestones were missing. The Grand Jury did not receive a County PMI-compliant plan for the Cerner project that was referenced in the BOS response to a 2013-2014 Ventura County Grand Jury report: “HCA did use a formal structured policy management plan for the Cerner System Implementation. The plan presented was the project plan required of Cerner in their contract with the County. This plan followed an Event Driven Project Management methodology.” The project plans presented to the Grand Jury were developed by Cerner and covered only Cerner tasks. [Ref-01, Ref-07, Ref-08]

F16: According to the BOS response to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report, Cerner uses a management method it calls “Event Driven Project Management Methodology.” This methodology cannot be found in the standard ISO or PMI management literature. It is used by Cerner as its own production planning tool because Cerner’s work is driven by the customer’s response (known as an “event”) to its requirements. Cerner has no authority over the customer’s workforce. Therefore, Cerner cannot predict when the customer will respond to its requests or how complete the response will be. The VCHCA, by contrast, was being driven by a very firm scheduled due date, the “Go-Live” date of July 1, 2013. Issues arise when event-driven methodologies are used on schedule-driven projects. A Federal Aviation Administration case study concludes that scope creep/project expansion and budget overruns are a consequence of this mismatch. (Ref-01, Ref-07, Ref-08, Ref-09, Ref-10, Ref-11, Ref-12)

F17: As of May 1, 2015, the total cost of the EHR system had not been publicly disclosed. The Grand Jury requested audit data from the Ventura County Auditor-Controller in order to evaluate implementation performance. At the time of the request, no audit had been completed. However, the Grand Jury received the following information:  County employee project time was not always charged to the project.  Equipment purchased had not been inventoried or not charged to the project.  Payments to vendors could not always be tracked to the project.  The true cost of EHR could not be ascertained.

F18: Audits are routinely conducted where cash is used in daily transactions or where there might be a propensity for theft. Audits may also be initiated at the request of agencies, submittal of a public complaint, or, if requested, at the completion of a project. County Project Management – A Case Study

F19: The EHR funding process began with a VCHCA letter to the BOS dated October 4, 2011, that recommended the purchase of an EHR system with the vendor Cerner for $32,466,000. The recommended project had an 18- month duration with a set of activities as follows:  Month 1. Contract Execution  Month 2. Hire Implementation Team  Month 3. Project Kickoff  Month 4-5 Training, Design  Month 5-12 Build, Validate  Month 13 Integration Test 1, Integration Test 2, Go-Live  Month 14-18 Post Live System Check, Begin Production Maintenance Activities [Ref-14, Ref-15]

F20: The BOS gave approval of and authorization for EHR expenses to be increased from the initial $32,466,000 on October 4, 2011, to over $71,000,000 as of May 7, 2015. [Ref-13, Ref-14] The history of BOS authorizations is as follows:  April 10, 2012 for $5,110,980 Cerner charges for services [Ref-15]  July 24, 2012 for $5,748,500 for staffing services, computerized physician order entry software and 5% contingency; $4,450,000 to NovaCoast Corp. for staffing support during EHR (July 24, 2012 to June 30, 2013); $125,000 to Zynx Corporation for physician order set creation services (July 24, 2012 to June 30, 2013) [Ref-16, Ref-17]  May 21, 2013 for $6,337,196 for medical equipment, end user equipment, licenses and software necessary to integrate patient care into EHR [Ref-18]  June 24, 2014 for $19,160,788 Cerner Remote Hosting [Ref-19]  September 23, 2014 for $514,560 not to exceed $599,880 for annual hosting of the Health Portal, portal reporting database, and Helping Hands Level 1 support [Ref-20]  November 4, 2014 for $99,900 with the ability to expand to $570,000; second amendment to contract with Barnard Howard LLC [Ref-21]  December 2, 2014 for $379,000 for first amendment to contract with Luminous Technology Group (January 3, 2014 to June 30, 2015) [Ref-22]

F21: The Cerner contract estimated Cerner’s travel expenses at $346,000. As of December 31, 2014, the County had reimbursed Cerner Corporation over $834,000 for travel expenses. [Ref-13] County Project Management – A Case Study 7

F22: As of the July 1, 2013 “Go-Live” date, over 100,000 County employee hours had been used for Phase 1 of the EHR implementation.

F23: The Ventura County Star, citing the EHR as a contributing factor, reported an $8,550,000 loss at the Ventura County Medical Center (VCMC) in fiscal year 2014. [Ref-23]

F24: Problems stemming from the implementation of the EHR system affected the VCHCA’s ability to bill correctly, resulting in an operational loss. These problems created a large volume of uncollectable patient billing (estimated at $40,000,000) that, even after being corrected, still left a substantial portion unrecoverable.

F25: Both before and after selection, County employees visited other hospitals that were either in the process of implementing a Cerner EHR “Solution” or had already completed their implementations. Their research revealed that other institutions employed more people with the necessary skill sets (e.g., informatics) to support their EHR system than the VCHCA had allocated during its Cerner EHR implementation. The VCHCA’s current level of EHR support remains below that of comparable institutions. Findings

June 02, 2015 — Panhandling and Charity Soliciting in the City of Thousand Oaks

31 pages 36 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 36 findings

F01: Case law is complex and dynamic with respect to soliciting’s relation to freedom of speech and private property rights. California is one of a handful of places where the State Supreme Court interprets freedom of speech broadly enough to include in-person soliciting in privately owned malls, which are considered “public forums.” The US Supreme Court has upheld the State’s right to this broad interpretation. These facts do not seem to be widely known outside the legal and public-safety communities. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03, FA-04, FA-05, FA-06, FA-07, FA-08, FA-09, FA-10) (Att-02)

F02: Within general State directives, individual police departments and city councils are free to develop their own specific policies and procedures regarding both aggressive and nonaggressive panhandling. These policies and procedures can vary significantly from city to city. (FA-11, FA-12, FA- 13, FA-14, FA-15, FA-16, FA-21, FA-22, FA-23, FA-24, FA-25, FA-26)

F03: The Sheriff’s Office and its officers serving in the TOPD have an accurate understanding of the legal issues surrounding soliciting in public places. Soliciting in Thousand Oaks The police respond appropriately given the City’s commitment to open- minded, collaborative, community-oriented approaches involving public education and social services. Public-safety personnel are proactive on this issue, and the Grand Jury found no evidence that directives embodied in State laws or County or City ordinances were being ignored. (FA-22, FA- 23, FA-24, FA-25, FA-26)

F04: Opinions vary widely about how many panhandlers are homeless. Local factors, social and environmental, no doubt are major determinants. Since understanding the factors that contribute to local panhandling is key for effectively managing the issue, the City could benefit from additional data collection and analysis. (FA-16, FA-17)

F05: Residents responding to the City’s two latest Community Attitude Surveys did not mention either “charity soliciting” or “panhandling” as a concern. However, homelessness” did show up on both surveys—as the 16th concern in 2013 and the 9th concern in 2015. Since many people believe most panhandlers are homeless, some survey respondents may be mentally combining the two issues. (FA-17, FA-32)

F06: Respondents to the City’s two latest Community Attitude Surveys rated the quality of life in Thousand Oaks as very high, leading to the conclusion that a majority of residents believe public-safety personnel are doing a good job of handling soliciting and other quality-of-life concerns. (FA-36) Polite placement: A charity solicitor’s station is set up against the far curb, across the drive-lane in front of Whole Foods market in the shopping center on Moorpark Road. (Grand Juror photo taken 11/22/14) Recommendations

F07: Courts in New Jersey, Colorado, Massachusetts (to a limited degree), and Puerto Rico have since adopted similarly “expansive” free speech rulings. [Ref-07, Ref-14, Ref-15]

F08: Along with free speech, private property rights, defined by common law rather than the Constitution, have been often cited in debates about the legality of public soliciting—especially with regard to property owners’ “right to prohibit trespass.” (“Common law” is primarily based on legal decisions already made in similar cases rather than on statutes.) [Ref-09, Ref-16, Ref-17, Ref-18, Ref-19, Ref-20] Soliciting in Thousand Oaks 5

F09: Pruneyard established the State’s authority to deny property owners’ right to prohibit trespass to solicitors if their property was “equivalent to a traditional public forum”—a phrase that in California includes shopping malls. [Ref-06, Ref-07, Ref-09, Ref-13, Ref-16, Ref-17, Ref-19]

F10: The Pruneyard decision has undergone numerous legal challenges, but so far State courts have reaffirmed it—with these notable clarifications: (1) In Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Assn. (2001), a 4–3 majority of the California First District Appellate Court decided for various reasons that California's free speech right does not apply to private apartment complexes. [Ref-08] (2) In 2010 a 20-year legal dispute between Los Angeles International Airport and the Hare Krishna religious group ended when the State Supreme Court decided against the Krishnas on the basis that an airport, unlike shopping malls, was not a “public forum.” [Ref-18] (3) In April 2012 a California appeals court found in favor of Ralph’s Market in El Segundo in its attempt to bar members of the Missionary Church of the Disciples of Christ from soliciting donations in front of its store. The court decided that “the rulings which compel shopping malls to allow solicitation do not apply to a single [stand-alone] retail store.” [Ref-20] Note: One example of case law is given above for each significant clarification, though others exist.

F11: Federal and state constitutional laws and local ordinances require that soliciting must be nonaggressive and that free-speech rights must be “reasonably exercised.” Aggressive panhandling is illegal. “Aggressive begging…is uncommon panhandling, a type of harassment bordering on extortion that is practiced by a minority of street people." [Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-17, Ref-19, Ref-20, Ref-21, Ref-22]

F12: The State Penal Code specifies that a person is “guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor,…who accosts other persons in any public place or in any place open to the public for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms.” [Emphasis added.] [Ref-23]

F13: The State Penal Code gives classifications of and sentences for mis- demeanors but does not stipulate how public-safety personnel should respond. [Ref-24, Ref-25]

F14: Nationwide studies have shown that local law enforcement efforts toward quality-of-life incidents, including public soliciting, fall into two broad categories: compassion and criminalization, also called sympathetic and unsympathetic. [Ref-10, Ref-21, Ref-26]

F15: “The traditional approach to quality of life crimes is to create as many laws as possible to outlaw the activities of the poor and homeless and to increase enforcement.” This has been called “criminalizing poverty.” [Ref-10, Ref- 21, Ref-26, Ref-27, Ref-28] 6 Soliciting in Thousand Oaks

F16: According to the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, a public-safety think-tank, “Understanding the factors that contribute to your panhandling problem will help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select appropriate responses.” [Ref-26] Pass on by: Signs are a popular way to deter soliciting. This one, outside the Best Buy store in Village Square mall on Moorpark Road in Thousand Oaks, advises customers, “If you wish to discourage solicitors from interrupting your shopping experience, we suggest you simply ignore them.” (Grand Juror photo taken 11/22/14)

F17: “Many studies have found that only a small percentage of homeless people panhandle, and only a small percentage of panhandlers are homeless.” Other sources assert the opposite. A San Francisco business district did its own local survey and came to the conclusion that 80% of panhandlers in its area were indeed homeless. [Ref-26, Ref-27]

F18: Currently no County ordinances regulate access to public areas for soliciting. If passed in the future, such an ordinance would apply only to County unincorporated areas, not to areas within cities. [Ref-29]

F19: The City of Thousand Oaks has more than 128,000 residents and is located in the southern portion of Ventura County. The City is a “general law city,” meaning that it has not adopted a charter, is organized by California State law, and is managed by a five-member City Council responsible for enacting local ordinances. [Ref-30, Ref-31]

F20: The City contracts with the County Sheriff's Office for law-enforcement services. A City webpage devoted to its police department reads, “Thousand Oaks is a leader in the development of proactive law enforcement strategies and prevention programs, all intended to keep our community safe and to maintain the quality of life our residents expect…Thousand Oaks provides specialized services in response to community concerns and input….” [Ref- 32, Ref-33] Soliciting in Thousand Oaks 7

F21: The City does not require solicitors on private property, including the privately owned local malls, to register or have licenses. [Ref-34]

F22: The Thousand Oaks Municipal Code (Code) has detailed sections that regulate soliciting: - The Code does not consider unaggressive begging (passive panhandling), soliciting, or occupying of travel corridors on private property a violation for those who have permission: “Any conduct in public places that are privately owned where such conduct is in conformity with permission granted by the owner of said premises or by the person entitled to the possession of said premises.” [Ref-35] - For aggressive soliciting, no person shall be cited unless she or he continues to beg “after having been notified by a law enforcement officer that the conduct violates” the Code. Even if a shopper or store manager has complained, an officer may not cite the solicitor who cooperates with the officer’s first-time request to desist. [Ref-36]

F23: The Code is worded so as to leave enforcement up to the discretion of public-safety officers: “Upon determining that a provision of this code has been violated, an enforcement officer has the authority to issue a civil penalty citation to any responsible person.” In other words, an officer can, but is not required to, cite a violator. [Ref-36]

F24: The City has ongoing programs to address soliciting: - The TOPD partners with local social services organizations to promote the message "Make Your Spare Change Count." The campaign urges residents, via a brochure and website page, to help by donating to local support agencies instead of to solicitors. [Ref-32, Ref-37] - A program called Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) “focuses on establishing community/police partnerships to solve neighborhood problems and to reduce the incidence of crime. This team of experienced officers will respond to community concerns by conducting a thorough analysis to identify the root causes of each situation. They follow- up by involving other service providers, including expert City staff, to seek a resolution that enhances the quality of life in each affected neighbor- hood.” [Ref-32] - The TOPD manages a “Business Watch” program that offers business owners/managers free help “dealing with panhandlers and other loiterers who scare off customers,” as well as help with more serious offenses. [Ref-38]

F25: A Sheriff’s deputy working for the TOPD told a reporter, “We’ve been lucky [panhandlers] are not violent and they usually take no for an answer. When a new one pops up, we go introduce ourselves and let them know the rules so they don’t harass people.” [Ref-39]

F26: Aggressive (illegal) panhandling in Thousand Oaks is not tolerated. Sheriff Geoff Dean has written, “[M]any communities have local ordinances that 8 Soliciting in Thousand Oaks prohibit aggressive panhandling. Deputies continue to respond to these calls and enforce ordinances, where they legally apply, whenever such situations occur.” [Ref-13, Ref-19, Ref-22, Ref-35, Ref-39]

F27: Most pedestrians interviewed by Grand Jurors in malls were not seriously bothered by solicitors and said solicitors were not aggressive. Several pedestrians reported feeling guilty for not donating even when solicitors were polite; several expressed sympathy for the solicitors’ plights. (Att-01, Att-02)

F28: Solicitors with whom jurors spoke regard Thousand Oaks shopping mall patrons as affluent. “Diners and grocery shoppers are good targets because dining and grocery shopping remind them of the contrast between their relative wealth and panhandlers’ apparent poverty.” [Ref-24] (Att-02)

F29: With one exception, business owners and/or managers in malls interviewed by Grand Jurors did not mention soliciting as a concern until prompted. All but one said they were not much bothered by solicitors and agreed that most were cooperative and unaggressive. One manager mentioned a radical political group whose members were uncooperative, but they drove into the City only once or twice a year, so the manager considered them a minor problem. (Att-03, Att-04)

F30: Business owners and/or managers interviewed are likely to take action (e.g., asking a solicitor to move, calling the police or a security guard) only when customers complain or business is being disrupted. [Ref-26] (Att-02)

F31: Some City malls and/or store owners post signs advising shoppers/ pedestrians that they do not endorse soliciting. [See photos pages 2 & 6.] Saving the spot: A solicitor takes a break from seeking donations, leaving various possessions just outside the barrier posts of the Best Buy store on Moorpark Road in Thousand Oaks. (Grand Juror photo taken 11/23/14)

F32: In a two-part 2013 Community Attitude Survey, the City’s residents were asked, “If the City government could change one thing to make Thousand Oaks a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you Soliciting in Thousand Oaks 9 like to see?” In Part One, conducted by phone to 400 randomly chosen residents, “Address homelessness issue” ranked as number 16 out of 25 concerns, mentioned by 1.5% of respondents. In Part Two, conducted online, “Address homelessness issue” ranked as number 9 out of 25 on the list of concerns, mentioned by 3% of those surveyed. No respondents mentioned soliciting as the one thing they would like to see changed. [Ref- 40, Ref-41] A similar 2015 survey was in process at the time of this writing; in the completed phone portion of the survey, soliciting again was not mentioned by anyone, while homelessness ranked number 9 out of 20 concerns, mentioned by 3.7% of those surveyed. Online results were not yet available. [Ref-42]

F33: The County Sheriff is aware of soliciting issues and has written about them on the editorial page of a local newspaper with the heading “Trespassing is not always easy to recognize” (also posted on the Sheriff’s Office website with the title “Panhandling not prohibited at shopping centers”). [Ref-13, Ref-19]

F34: A review of all press releases issued by the Sheriff’s Office during the past 16 months showed that none dealt with panhandling/soliciting in Thousand Oaks. [Ref-43]

F35: The Grand Jury’s analysis of 2014 TOPD call-logs for seven months when soliciting typically occurs (e.g., summer, holiday times) revealed no calls asking for police service on that subject.

F36: In the City’s two most recent Community Attitude Surveys, 96% and 97% of respondents, respectively, rated the City’s quality of life as “excellent” or “good.” [Ref-40, Ref-41, Ref-42] Findings

June 01, 2015 — County Responsibility for Sidewalks

19 pages 19 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 19 findings

F01: The issue of maintaining residential sidewalks in County unincorporated areas is both complicated and confusing. Information as to homeowner responsibility for sidewalk maintenance (repair versus temporary fixes) is not readily available. (FA-03, FA-04, FA-05, FA-06, FA-07, FA-08, FA-09, FA-10, FA-11, FA-12, FA-13, FA-14, FA-15, FA-16, FA-17, FA-18, FA-19)

F02: A funded countywide sustainable sidewalk policy would benefit property owners in Supervisorial District 2 to a greater extent than other districts because 60% of sidewalks in need of repair are located in that district. (FA-04, FA-07, FA-08) 4 County Responsibility for Sidewalks

F03: Current sidewalk maintenance practice is not related to the actual condition of the sidewalks. Sidewalk repairs—both temporary and permanent—are completed only when the PWATD is performing scheduled street repair in an area. (FA-04, FA-16)

F04: Information on sidewalk repair and maintenance is not easily accessed on the County website. Website pages do not contain clear and complete information. Examples include: navigation to specific information is difficult; information about free grinding is not available; there is limited information as to when sidewalk repairs will be done in an area. (FA-13, FA-14, FA-15) Recommendations

F05: In February 2014, the BOS directed the PWATD to review its current sidewalk maintenance policy. [Ref-04]

F06: On October 28, 2014, the PWATD presented to the BOS the results of its survey of the policies of California counties related to the responsibility for sidewalk repair. Out of 58 counties, 20 responded. Of the 20 responding:  Nine counties require property owners to maintain sidewalks.  Eleven counties assume responsibility for maintaining sidewalks. The PWATD also stated that five counties that did not respond to the survey maintain sidewalks. [Ref-02]

F07: According to the PWATD report of October 28, 2014, there are 150 miles of sidewalks in unincorporated areas of the County. Sixty percent of these sidewalks are located in Supervisorial District 2. The report also includes estimates of the cost for needed repair or replacement of all sidewalks in unincorporated areas at $2.6 million with annual maintenance costs at $200,000. [Ref-02]

F08: On October 28, 2014, the District 2 Supervisor presented to the BOS a proposal for a countywide, sustainable Sidewalk Maintenance Program: “to Revise County Policy to Re-Establish Public Funding of Sidewalk Maintenance…in the Unincorporated County and Include Grinding as a Temporary Sidewalk Repair Method.” This motion was not approved. [Ref-02]

F09: On October 28, 2014, a BOS motion “to include grinding as a temporary sidewalk repair method and perform the sidewalk repair while performing the street maintenance and not charge the property owner” was approved in a 3-2 vote. [Ref-02]

F10: According to the PWATD, grinding has been used as a temporary solution to sidewalk damage; however, the only permanent (long-term) solution is replacement. [Ref-02]

F11: The PWATD has repaired or replaced sidewalks at approximately 800 locations since 2009. Property owners have been assessed for these repairs. Replacement of sidewalk slabs cost, on average, $320 if completed by the County. [Ref-02] County Responsibility for Sidewalks 3

F12: Property owners have the option to hire a private contractor to repair or replace their sidewalks at their expense. A “no-fee” encroachment permit from the PWATD is required. In general the cost to hire a private contractor is more expensive than the average $320 charged by the County. [Ref-02]

F13: Information about the October 28, 2014 BOS directive related to grinding sidewalks at County expense is not available on the PWATD website or phone message system. The fact that sidewalk maintenance is only performed in conjunction with road maintenance projects is also not available on the website. [Ref-06]

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the PWA to revise its website to be more complete and easily accessible, especially with regard to current BOS directives and PWATD practices related to sidewalk maintenance in unincorporated areas. The Sidewalk and Street Tree Maintenance brochure should include information about grinding of raised sidewalk sections at County expense. (FI-01, FI-03, FI-04)

F14: The PWATD revised the brochure Sidewalk and Street Tree Maintenance on February 12, 2015. The revised brochure contains no information related to grinding sidewalks at County expense. [Ref-06] (Att-02)

Related Recommendations (1)

F15: Information related to the PWA, accessed through the County of Ventura website, provides links to the Transportation Department pages that include the sidewalk brochure and information on current road maintenance projects, as well as priorities for these projects. [Ref-06]

F16: Property owners are notified in advance (within four to six months) when road maintenance will be conducted in their area. With regard to sidewalks, the notification letter says, “The enclosed photograph shows the sidewalk on your property has significant damage and needs to be repaired or replaced.” The letter gives information about replacement, cost, and homeowner responsibility for payment. (Att-03)

F17: Currently the PWATD has made a renewed effort to collect past-due amounts from property owners who have not paid their invoices for sidewalk replacement work done from December 2005 to January 2014. [Ref-06]

F18: On March 10, 2015, the PWATD presented to the BOS a report on its efforts to collect delinquent fees for sidewalk replacement. The BOS approved a motion giving property owners a 90-day extension to pay delinquent fees or face property liens. [Ref-05]

F19: The PWATD has no authority to grant exemptions to property owners for sidewalk maintenance costs. Findings

June 01, 2015 — Countywide Bicycle Safety

27 pages 11 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F01: Throughout the County, law enforcement personnel rarely enforce helmet laws. They do not enforce bicycle licensing ordinances. (FA-02, FA-06)

F02: Licensing or registering bicycles with the police assists in the return of lost or stolen bicycles to owners, thereby reducing the number of unclaimed bicycles. (FA-03)

F03: Bicycle helmet laws for children are not routinely complied with nor enforced. (FA-05, FA-06, FA-07, FA-08)

F04: Adult bicycle deaths may be reduced if adults wear helmets. (FA-09, FA- 10, FA-11)

F05: Of all the factors contributing to bicyclists’ deaths and injuries, motor vehicle driver error is the most prevalent. Rear-ending of cyclists is the most common error. (FA-12, FA-13)

F06: Instruction related to bicycle laws and bicycle safety is insufficient throughout the County. (FA-15, FA-16, FA-17, FA-18, FA-19)

F07: Statistics on bicycle accidents imply a lack of compliance with the laws and rules of the road. There is a need for the public to be aware of the laws. It is incumbent upon cyclists and drivers to know and obey the laws. (FA-15, FA-16, FA-17, FA-18, FA-19)

F08: Salmoning places cyclists at greater risk as motor vehicle drivers are not expecting riders to be coming directly toward them. Many people are unaware that salmoning is illegal in the State. (FA-17)

F09: Cities and counties utilizing bicycle advisory commissions/committees have been able to create better bicycling conditions and infrastructure, such as bike lanes, tunnels, and paths that provide for safer bicycle usage. (FA-20, FA-21)

F10: City and county bicycle advisory commissions/committees have been able to better educate people to be aware of bicyclists. They help bicyclists become more knowledgeable of the rules of the road and thus become safer cyclists. (FA-21) Countywide Bicycle Safety 5

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of all cities within the County that do not already have a Bicycle Advisory Commission/Committee establish one to perform such tasks as:  Identify roads in need of bicycle lanes  Research federal, State, and other funding sources for projects related to bicycle infrastructure and use  Issue motor vehicle and bicycle public safety announcements  Promote use of bicycles as a viable form of transportation and for health and ecological reasons  Offer safety education and bike rodeos for children  Provide liaison between city councils, transportation agencies, and the community on bicycle-related issues and concerns  Assist in the development and dissemination of educational materials related to bicycle laws and safety  Review and comment on private development plans that include bicycle facilities or have an impact on bicycle safety and access  Review and promote the enforcement of city and State laws related to bicycle safety  Encourage the public to register bicycles and keep a record of the serial numbers to facilitate the return of stolen or lost bicycles. (FI-02, FI-06, FI-07, FI-09, FI-10, FI-11)

F11: Bicycle advisory commissions/committees, working in conjunction with city councils and/or transportation agencies, have been able to assist local governments in obtaining State, federal, and other grant monies to be used to build bicycling infrastructure and educate the public about pertinent laws and safe riding practices. (FA-21) Recommendations

Related Recommendations (1)

June 01, 2015 — Detention Facilities and Related Law Enforcement Issues

30 pages 55 findings 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 55 findings

F01: The Grand Jury rated all holding cells or equivalent physical facilities in the County as satisfactory or better for the areas reviewed, except for the lack of raised seating in the Oxnard police station holding cells, lack of tamper proof lavatory fixtures at the Moorpark police station area serving detainees, and an inoperative water tap in one holding cell in the Port Hueneme police station. (FA-01, FA-23, FA-25, FA-31)

F02: Realignment has put more demands and stress on public safety workers and County facilities. Changes in the inmate population, including gang complexity, mental health issues, and increasing average stays and headcounts, as well as the amount of multiagency coordination and documentation, pose major challenges to the County corrections community. Overcrowding at the Todd Road and Main Jail facilities is one of these challenges, which could be mitigated by the construction of the proposed mental health facility at Todd Road. (FA-02, FA-03, FA-04, FA-08, FA-09)

F03: At the Ojai police station, the lack of an accessible AED log precluded verification of its operational readiness. (FA-28)

F04: The Santa Paula Police Department is significantly understaffed in sworn officers and operating with an inadequate and deteriorating physical facility. This limits its ability to respond to detainee and city needs. (FA-33, FA-34, FA-35, FA-36)

F05: The Port Hueneme Police Department officer availability is below authorized levels, which limits its ability to respond to detainee and city needs. (FA-32)

F06: The space limitations of the Oxnard police station have affected the Police Department’s ability to efficiently carry out its functions and responsibilities. (FA-26, FA-27)

F07: Proposition 47’s consequences, both intended and unintended, are only beginning to be evaluated. Early indications are that it may be successful in reducing the State prisoner population, but the effects on local law 12 Detention Facilities and Related Law Enforcement Issues enforcement agencies and communities are yet to be understood. (FA-47, FA-48, FA-49, FA-50, FA-51, FA-52)

F08: The County has made a major effort to cope with the consequences of Realignment with some success. Overcrowding continues to be evident at the Main Jail and Todd Road Jail. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03, FA-04, FA-05, FA-08, FA-09)

F09: Electronic data communications improvements are needed between the Fillmore police station and the Sheriff’s communication center. (FA-22)

F10: The City of Ventura Police Department is operating with staffing and infrastructure constraints, which may be contributory factors in dealing with that city’s crime rate. (FA-39, FA-40, FA-41) Recommendations

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: The Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura City Council improve the Police Department information systems infrastructure and increase staffing levels consistent with that city’s needs. (FI-10) Responses Responses required from: Board of Supervisors of Ventura County (FI-02, FI-07, FI-08) (R-01, R-02) City Council, City of Camarillo (FI-07) (R-02) City Council, City of Fillmore (FI-07, FI-09) (R-02, R-05) City Council, City of Moorpark (FI-01, FI-07) (R-02, R-11) City Council, City of Ojai (FI-03, FI-07) (R-02, R-06) City Council, City of Oxnard (FI-01, FI-06, FI-07) (R-02, R-03, R-04) City Council, City of Port Hueneme (FI-01, FI-05, FI-07) (R-02, R-09, R-10) City Council, City of Santa Paula (FI-04, FI-07) (R-02, R-07, R-08) City Council, City of Simi Valley (FI-07) (R-02) City Council, City of Thousand Oaks (FI-07) (R-02) City Council, City of Ventura (FI-07, FI-10) (R-02, R-12) Ventura County Sheriff’s Office (FI-02, FI-03, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09) (R-01, R-02,

F11: The Juvenile Justice Facility (JJF) houses Providence High School, which is managed by the Ventura County Office of Education. Detention Facilities and Related Law Enforcement Issues

F12: The JJF staff facilitate Aggression Replacement Training (ART) for the inmates. Other programs include Baby Elmo (a teen parenting program), Boys and Girls Club, Computer Repair/Robotics, construction trade skills, journaling, and the Palmer Drug Abuse Program (PDAP).

F13: The JJF is clean and well maintained. It has a bed capacity of 420. Although its current staff can support 150 inmates, at the time of the inspection the facility had 80 inmates.

F14: The Work Furlough facility provides low-risk offenders the opportunity to work, attend school, and/or receive job training while serving a jail sentence. The facility has a capacity of 235 inmates but current staffing would accommodate 100 inmates. At the time of this inspection, only 67 inmates were housed at the Work Furlough facility and enrolled in the Work Furlough Program. Inmates are carefully screened prior to admission to the program, so the population is limited to the number that meet the screening criteria.

F15: The Work Furlough’s JOBS training curriculum is designed to improve inmates’ chances of success after leaving the program.

F16: The State’s Ventura Youth Correctional Facility (VYCF) has a housing capacity of over 800 wards. Current staffing levels support 600. At the time of this inspection, 234 were in residence: 209 males and 25 females. Several buildings on the grounds appeared to be unoccupied. In accordance with the proposed 2014-2015 State budget, the average annual cost to incarcerate a ward is estimated at $274,000. [Ref-32]

F17: The VYCF has implemented the IBM program for all wards. This program employs individualized behavior modification and positive reinforcement/rewards to teach wards attitudes, behaviors, and skills that will help them reenter society upon release and reduce their chances of recidivism.

F18: The VYCF provides vocational instruction, including construction skills, dog grooming, and computer skills, as well as online training in various trade areas.

F19: The East Valley Facility serves as the Thousand Oaks’ Police station, including a holding cell, booking cells serving multiple incorporated and unincor- porated areas of the East County and the Highway Patrol. It also serves as a post-sentencing jail for inmates from the County referred to as trusties. The trusties participate in a work program involving duties on site and off site during the day. The East Valley Facility does not house women, juveniles, or those with psychiatric or serious physical health issues.

F20: The East Valley Facility has a bed capacity for 20 trusties and had a population of 10 trusties at the time of inspection.

F21: The Fillmore police station is undergoing a significant facility reconfiguration to make better use of available space. All recommendations made in the 2013-2014 Grand Jury report have been completed. [Ref-18] Detention Facilities and Related Law Enforcement Issues 9

F22: The data transmission rate between the Fillmore police station and Sheriff’s Headquarters is reportedly very slow, resulting in communication delays and observed staff frustration.

F23: The Moorpark Police Service Center has no holding cells per se. It uses supervised interview rooms instead. The one toilet facility used by detainees is not equipped with tamper proof fixtures commonly found in holding cells.

F24: The Moorpark police station shares facilities with the California Highway Patrol, creating a unique relationship within the State.

F25: At the time of inspection, holding cells in the Oxnard police station had no seats or mattress pads, although chairs and pads were available if requested or needed for health reasons. The Grand Jury observed two benches being prepared for installation into the holding cells.

F26: The City of Oxnard receives one-third of the total post-release offenders sent to Ventura County by the State. [Ref-20, Ref-24]

F27: The Grand Jury observed dual use of rooms and highly confined facilities for staff and equipment at the Oxnard police station.

F28: At the time of the inspection of the Ojai police station, the AED log was not available for review.

F29: The Port Hueneme police station has two holding cells with a total capacity of seven detainees.

F30: The Port Hueneme police station has limited supplies and equipment to clean up soiled detainees.

F31: In the Port Hueneme police station, water was not operational in one of the cells.

F32: The Port Hueneme Police Department officer availability was well below the authorized level due to injuries.

F33: The Santa Paula police station had an inoperable men’s restroom (red- tagged due to asbestos contamination) and station roof damage due to recent rains.

F34: The Santa Paula police station has inadequate space for its staff. As a result, detectives are stationed in a trailer adjacent to the police station and use restrooms across an alley in City Hall.

F35: Santa Paula police officers do not have access to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) or Computer Aided Dispatch System (CADS) in patrol cars. The officers must call in to get key information.

F36: The Santa Paula Police Department has 26 officers, 4 below the current allocation of 30 set by the City Council.

F37: The Ventura City police station has holding cells, but they are not used. Detention Facilities and Related Law Enforcement Issues

F38: The Ventura City police station acquired an AED for its holding area and staff has been trained in its use.

F39: The Ventura City Police Department is staffed at the same levels as in 1976 when the city had approximately half the current population. [Ref-33]

F40: The Ventura City Police Department depends heavily on a paper-based rather than computer-based system for information management.

F41: During 2014 the City of Ventura had the highest “Part 1” crime rate (defined by the FBI as violent and certain property crimes) in Ventura County. It had a higher than national average property crime rate and lower than national average violent crime rate. [Ref-34, Ref-35]

F42: Law enforcement agencies in the County have implemented all but one of the 2013-2014 Ventura County Grand Jury’s site-specific recommendations. The installation of raised seating at the Oxnard Police Department is the exception. [Ref-18]

F43: Juveniles detained in all holding facilities are released to parents/ guardians if the offense doesn’t require transfer to the JJF. Proper juvenile-detention logs were observed at all holding cell facilities.

F44: At the Ventura Youth Corrections Facility (VYCF), all routine janitorial functions are done by the wards. The facility was not clean.

F45: The VYCF has many programs for education, rehabilitation, and improving life skills for its wards.

F46: City police departments and Sheriff’s Office staffs operating the holding facilities affirmed that they conform to their written policies and procedures for processing juvenile detainees.

F47: California voters passed Proposition 47 on November 4, 2014. [Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15]

F48: Proposition 47 reclassifies a number of crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. The retroactive nature of the proposition’s mandate provides the possibility for currently convicted, eligible inmates to have their sentences reviewed and modified. [Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15]

F49: Proposition 47 changes the crimes of shoplifting, theft (including firearms), receiving stolen property, writing bad checks, and check forgery to a misdemeanor if the values involved are less than $950. [Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-36]

F50: Depending on the amount and type, Proposition 47 reclassifies possession for personal use of most illegal drugs (e.g., cocaine, heroin, and date-rape drugs) to a misdemeanor. [Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-36]

F51: As of December 31, 2014, 966 people statewide have been released from State prison as a result of Proposition 47. [Ref-37]

F52: Proposition 47, by downgrading some felonies to misdemeanors, abolishes the ability of law enforcement to collect DNA from some offenders. [Ref-36] Detention Facilities and Related Law Enforcement Issues 11

F53: As a result of its biennial inspections of the facilities under its jurisdiction, the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) found no issues of noncompliance with the minimum standards as set forth in Title 15. [Ref-03]

F54: The BSCC found Todd Road and the Main Jail noncompliant with Title 24. Their useful area for recreation and other dayroom activities was below minimum requirements as a result of the addition of beds in the dayrooms. [Ref-04]

F55: Personnel at all facilities inspected are aware of the need for disaster preparedness, including plans to manage detainees. Within the limits of resources, they conduct regular training and simulations to prepare for disasters. Often these are done in coordination with other emergency service providers and other city/County resources. Findings

April 23, 2015 — to police reports where no police report is warranted

12 pages 7 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F01: The PHPD follows State law and its own internal policies in determining the need to generate a police report. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03, FA-04, FA-05, FA-06)

F02: The PHPD has a process in place for the public to request Call for Service reports, police reports, and other information. The process and applicable forms are not well publicized or easily available to the public. (FA-03, FA-04, FA-05, FA-06, FA-07)

F03: The criteria for the PHPD to write a police report are not publicized. The fact that the public is not entitled to a police report when the incident did not warrant a police report is also not publicized. (FA-05, FA-06) 4 Port Hueneme Police Department Recommendations

F04: The Request for Information or Records form is available in English and Spanish by contacting the PHPD in person or by phone. It is not available online. [Ref-02, Ref-03, Ref-04] The form includes:  Type of record/information requested  Party requesting report/information Port Hueneme Police Department 3  Reason for requesting report/information  Signature, driver’s license number, and address of the person making the request  Disposition of the request completed by records personnel The Request for Information or Records form states that the “Port Hueneme Police Department’s Records Personnel have the right to refuse access to Records if the requestor does not satisfactorily establish his/her identity and the right to access such records.” (Att-01, Att-02)

F05: State law and PHPD internal policy regulate the types of incidents requiring a police report:  Officer finding of criminal activity  Missing persons  Found property or evidence  Incidents involving the death of a human being  Traffic collisions above minimum reporting level  Injury or damage by City personnel  Injury as the result of drug overdose  Attempted suicide  Injury that is major/serious, where death could result  Any incident of juvenile gunshot injuries

F06: Police reports for incidents other than those identified above are at the discretion of the PHPD. Not every incident leads to a police report.

F07: The PHPD website does not contain information about how to request documentation of a Call for Service or how to appeal a denied Request for Information or Records. [Ref-02, Ref-03, Ref-04] Findings

April 01, 2015 — City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural and Business Water Resources

33 pages 47 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 47 findings

F01: Oxnard secures its water from a variety of sources, which complicates the City’s water management. (FA-03, FA-04, FA-05, FA-18)

F02: Overpumping of water from wells, combined with reduced rainfall, has seriously increased salt water intrusion into local aquifers. (FA-06, FA-08)

F03: Oxnard displayed prescient long-range planning when it undertook a major study resulting in a program titled GREAT. The intent of GREAT was to provide an additional supply source for water for Oxnard and its adjoining agricultural and business entities. (FA-08, FA-09, FA-10, FA-11, FA-12, FA-13, FA-14)

F04: GREAT is an ambitious and financially daring program that has required and will require major capital investments in facility construction to accomplish its objectives. (FA-11, FA-13, FA-14) 8 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural

F05: Most of the Advanced Water Purification Facility’s (AWPF) Phase 1 construction has been completed and can produce recycled water. Completion has proven that the advanced technology for producing recycled water is as effective as Oxnard projected. (FA-24)

F06: When Phase 1 and Phase 2 of GREAT are funded and completed, the AWPF is projected to produce water at or below competitive prices, which could justify the enormous risk the City Council took in approving the program. (FA-25)

F07: Water issues are not restricted to Oxnard but are countywide. County issues are administered by numerous separate, sometimes competitive, independent entities. There is no overall County organization that has comprehensive regulatory authority over these entities that could compel compliance. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-34, FA-39, FA-40, FA-41, FA-42, FA-43)

F08: The Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County has too many participating parties to function as an efficient regulatory agency for the County. (FA-40)

F09: Oxnard is the last city to receive water flowing through the County’s aquifers and rivers. (FA-07)

F10: The State has granted the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) important status as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to develop the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Fox Canyon aquifer. The State is in the process of creating new standards for future and more effective groundwater management. (FA-46, FA-47) Recommendations

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council initiate collaboration with and provide assistance to the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) in establishing the State-required Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for its aquifer. The GSP will establish regulations and binding consequences for noncompliance. A joint effort could provide a more efficient, sustainable, and equitable process to distribute water throughout the area of the Fox Canyon Aquifer and become a model for the County. (FI-07, FI-08, FI-10) City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 9 Responses Responses required from: City of Oxnard City Council (FI-06, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09, FI-10) (R-01, R-02) Responses requested from: City of Oxnard City Manager (FI-06, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09, FI-10) (R-01, R-02) City of Oxnard Utilities Department Interim Director (FI-06, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09, FI- 10) (R-01, R-02) Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FI-06, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09, FI-10) (R-01, R-02) References Ref-01. State of California, Department of Transportation, “Ventura County Economic Forecast, Ventura County 2011,” http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic_files/2011/V entura.pdf (accessed December 21, 2014). Ref-02. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, “Oxnard, California,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxnard,_California (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-03. City of Oxnard, Development Services, Planning, Project Description, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, “GREAT Program Advanced Planning Study,” May 2002, http://developmentservices.cityofoxnard.org/Uploads/Planning/GREAT/S ection2.pdf (accessed November 14, 2014). Ref-04. City of Oxnard, GREAT Program Recycled Water, “Water…Essential to All Life: Past, Present and Future,” http://www.oxnardnews.org/great.aspx?md=faq#16 (accessed November 21, 2014). Ref-05. Snyder, Stephanie. “Oxnard dedicates ‘world class’ water recycling facility,” Ventura County Star, October 11, 2012, http://www.vcstar.com/news/oxnard-dedicates-world-class-water- recycling (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-06. Wenner, Gretchen. “Pump problems keep Oxnard desalter offline,” Ventura County Star, March 18, 2013, http://www.vcstar.com/news/pump-problems-keep-oxnard-desalter- offline (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-07. Wenner, Gretchen. “Oxnard’s showcase desalter hasn’t worked for more than two years,” Ventura County Star, May 23, 2014, 10 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural http://www.vcstar.com/news/oxnards-showcase-desalter-hasnt-worked- for-more (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-08. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, “Seawater Intrusion in a Coastal California Aquifer,” http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1996/0125/report.pdf (accessed November 20, 2014). Ref-09. Harris, Mike; Hoops, Stephanie. “Drought moves Ventura County water officials to action,” Ventura County Star, January 17, 2014, http://www.vcstar.com/news/officials-in-ventura-county-keeping-close- eye-on (accessed November 20, 2014). Ref-10. Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County, http://www.ventura.org/wcvc/ (accessed November 19, 2014) Ref-11. CA.GOV, Department of Water Resources, “California State Water Project Overview,” http://www.water.ca.gov/swp/ (accessed November 21, 2014). Ref-12. Kelley, Daryl. “Seawater Invading Wells, Report Says,” Los Angeles Times, February 15, 2003, http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/15/local/me-seawater15 (accessed November 21, 2014). Ref-13. Lynch, Scott. CH2M HILL, Oxnard GREAT Program, “California Section Conference, WateReuse Association,” March 2009, https://www.watereuse.org/files/images/Scott_Lynch.pdf (accessed November 14, 2014). Ref-14. Oxnard City Council, meeting of June 25, 2013, Agenda Item K.2., http://oxnard.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=&clip_id=2413& meta_id=129096 (accessed November 14, 2014). Ref-15. City of Oxnard, Public Works, Water Section, “A Roadmap Toward Sustainable Water Supplies,” http://publicworks.cityofoxnard.org/14/99/485 (accessed November 21, 2014). Ref-16. United Water Conservation District, “Facilities and Strategies,” http://www.unitedwater.org/about-us-6/facilities-a-strategies (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-17. Calleguas Municipal Water District, “Controlling costs to minimize rate impacts…,” http://www.calleguas.com/about-calleguas-municipal-water- district/index.asp (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-18. City of Oxnard, Utilities Task Force Regular Meeting Minutes, Thursday, June 21, 2012, http://oxnard.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=oxnard_c908233 5f70e29ad1783d74355fabf4a.pdf&view=1 (accessed November 21, 2014). City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 11 Ref-19. Oxnard City Council, meeting of January 13, 2015, http://oxnard.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=46&clip_id=29 67 (accessed January 27, 2015). Ref-20. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. City of Oxnard, “Final Recycled Water Backbone System Study,” October 7, 2005. Ref-21. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, “Emergency Ordinance - E,” http://www.fcgma.org/images/ordinances_legislation/Emergency_Ordin ance_E_-_Orig._Signed_optimized.pdf (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-22. City of Oxnard, Oxnard Water Conservation Program, Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/OxnardWaterConservationProgram?hc_locati on=timeline (accessed November 21, 2014). Ref-23. Water – technology.net, “US city plans to build groundwater desalination plant,” November 2, 2012, http://www.water- technology.net/news/newsus-groundwater-desalination-plant (accessed January 26, 2015). Ref-24. Calleguas Municipal Water District, “Salinity Management and Water Supply in Ventura County,” September 30, 2013, http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/meeting_materials/regional/2 013-09-30/Ventura-SalinityMgmt-PPT.pdf (accessed January 26, 2015). Ref-25. O’Connor, Lydia. “California Passes $7.5 Billion Water Bond,” The Huffington Post, November 4, 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/prop-1-water- bond_n_6097526.html (accessed January 26, 2015). Ref-26. Ventura County Resource Conservation District, http://www.vcrcd.org/ (accessed November 21, 2014). Ref-27. Association of Water Agencies Ventura County, http://www.awavc.org/ (accessed November 19, 2014). Ref-28. Orange County Water District, http://www.ocwd.com/ (accessed November 19, 2014). Ref-29. State of California Groundwater Legislation, http://www.water.ca.gov/cagroundwater/moresgma.cfm (accessed February 11, 2015). Ref-30. Farm Bureau of Ventura County, January 2015, http://farmbureauvc.com/pdf_forms/newsletters/FB-Newsletter- January-2015.pdf (accessed February 12, 2015). Attachments Att-01. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Groundwater Basins Att-02. United Water Conservation District Boundary 12 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural Att-03. GREAT Program Update, City Council Meeting, 25 Jun 2013 Att-04. Effect Upon Water Costs – Stabilized Rates Att-05. Calleguas Municipal Water District Att-06. Utilities Task Force Meeting, 21 Jun 2012 Att-07. GREAT Program Update, City Council Meeting, 25 Jun 2013 Att-08. Advanced Water Purification Facility Pipeline City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 13 Glossary TERM DEFINITION AF Acre foot – 325,900 gallons Aquifer An underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, or silt) from which groundwater can be extracted using a water well AWPF Advanced Water Purification Facility City Council Oxnard City Council CMWD Calleguas Municipal Water District County County of Ventura CSWP California State Water Project Debt service The cash that is required for a particular time period to cover the payment of interest and principal on a debt Effluent Sewage or other liquid waste that is discharged into a body of water FATW Full Advanced Treatment Water FCGMA Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency GREAT Groundwater Recovery Enhancement and Treatment GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OC Orange County, California Overdraft condition More water has been pumped out of the aquifer than has been replenished OWTP Oxnard Wasterwater Treatment Plant Oxnard City of Oxnard 14 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural TERM DEFINITION Pumping allocation FCGMA establishes the amount of water credit (allocation) a water supplier may withdraw from the Fox Canyon aquifer. If the water supplier secures water from another source, the supplier may receive a conservation credit that could be redeemed to pump aquifer groundwater at a later date. PVCWD Pleasant Valley County Water District Recharge A hydrologic process where water moves downward from surface water to groundwater Reverse osmosis A technique for purifying water by forcing impure water through a semipermeable membrane across which salts and other impurities cannot pass Seawater intrusion The use of injection wells and a subsurface barrier barrier in the prevention of seawater intrusion Secondary effluent After wastewater goes through the first primary treatment, it undergoes a secondary biological process to remove suspended solids and other organic matter. SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Maintenance Act Tertiary water A third processing of wastewater during which nutrients (such as phosphorous and nitrogen) and most suspended solids are removed VCRCD Ventura County Resource Conservation District Water Storage Well An excavation or structure created in the ground by digging, driving, boring, or drilling to hold water for future needs WCVC Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County Wetlands Land or areas (such as marshes or swamps) that are covered, often intermittently, with shallow water or have soil saturated with moisture City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 15 Attachment 01 Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Groundwater Basins 16 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Groundwater Basins City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 17 Attachment 02 United Water Conservation District Boundary 18 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural United Water Conservation District Boundary City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 19 Attachment 03 GREAT Program Update, City Council Meeting 25 Jun 2013 20 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 21 Attachment 04 Effect Upon Water Costs – Stabilized Rates 22 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural Effect Upon Water Costs – Stabilized Rates City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 23 Attachment 05 Calleguas Municipal Water District 24 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural Calleguas Municipal Water District City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 25 Attachment 06 Utilities Task Force Meeting, 21 Jun 2012 26 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 27 Attachment 07 GREAT Program Update, City Council Meeting, 25 Jun 2013 28 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 29 Attachment 08 Advanced Water Purification Facility Pipeline 30 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 31

F11: GREAT called for a major investment in new construction, including new facilities, pipelines, and underground water storage capabilities. [Ref-03]

F12: The existing Oxnard Water Treatment Plant (OWTP) produces “secondary effluent” that currently has no commercial use. This effluent is discharged into the Pacific Ocean via a 48-inch-diameter outfall pipe that is 5,950 feet long and 60 feet under water. [Ref-03, Ref-13, Ref-14]

F13: A major component of GREAT was to build a facility, the Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF), to further process the secondary effluent from the OWTP. This additional processing would produce “tertiary water”—high- quality, recycled water for use in agriculture, industry, golf courses, and parks. The first of four phases was substantially completed in 2012 at a cost of approximately $110 million. [Ref-03, Ref-05, Ref-13, Ref-14] 4 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural

F14: Another significant part of GREAT was the construction of the desalter. The desalter uses reverse osmosis to remove dissolved minerals and nitrates from Oxnard aquifer water. The desalter and its associated components were completed in 2008 at a cost of $63 million. [Ref-03, Ref-13, Ref-15]

F15: The desalter was not operational from December 2011 through July 2014 for a variety of reasons. Chief among them were budget problems that caused (1) construction shortcuts, including insufficient backup systems; and (2) inability to repair the desalter system when it failed. This nonoperation phase was further compounded by significant personnel shortages in key positions. [Ref-06, Ref-07]

F16: Oxnard was required to purchase water from other sources while the desalter was nonoperational. [Ref-07]

F17: The AWPF was planned as a four-phase project. Completing Phase 1 will allow the facility to produce 7,000 acre feet (AF) per year of recycled water. Completing Phases 2 through 4 will each produce the same amount, for a total potential production of 28,000 AF per year. [Ref-03, Ref-13, Ref-14]

F18: Oxnard receives its water from three primary sources: Oxnard wells, United Water Conservation District (UWCD), and the Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD). The cost of water from Oxnard wells and UWCD is the same: approximately $701 per AF. CMWD charges $1,248 per AF. [Ref-03, Ref-07, Ref-14] (Att-01, Att-02, Att-03)

F19: Oxnard’s projection for water rates reflects significant increases in both UWCD and CMWD prices. If these projections are accurate, water from the AWPF will be competitive with water provided by current suppliers. [Ref- 13] (Att-03, Att-04)

F20: UWCD is Oxnard’s wholesale groundwater supplier. It manages water resources of the Santa Clara River and associated aquifers. It also operates several water production and distribution facilities, providing water to municipal and agricultural customers in a 330-square-mile service area in the western part of the County. [Ref-03, Ref-16] (Att-02)

F21: The CMWD is Oxnard’s imported water supplier with a service area spanning 375 square miles in the County. CMWD provides this water from the Metropolitan Water District, which receives its water from the California State Water Project (CSWP). [Ref-03, Ref-17] (Att-05)

F22: The projected cost to produce water at the AWPF will be reduced from approximately $1,854 to $1,298 per Acre Foot (AF) when Phase 1 and Phase 2 are completed. [Ref-14] (Att-03)

F23: The projected cost to complete Phase 1 and Phase 2 is $76 million and $55 million respectively, for a total of $131 million. [Ref-18] (Att-06)

F24: Initial Phase 1 water production of the Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) will be 7,000 AF per year. AWPF can operate with a limited capacity of 1,800 AF. [Ref-18] (Att-07) City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 5

F25: Of the Advanced Water Purification Facility’s (AWPF) Phase 1 production, 1,800 AF is planned for City and commercial Oxnard customers: River Ridge Golf Club, Riverpark Development, and International Paper (Indy Container Board). The balance of 5,200 AF will be distributed to the Pleasant Valley County Water District (PVCWD), outside the boundaries of Oxnard. [Ref-18] (Att-07)

F26: In January 2015 a management use agreement (Full Advanced Treatment Recycled Water Management and Use Agreement) was negotiated wherein Oxnard will provide excess recycled water from the AWPF to the PVCWD. The PVCWD will then distribute the water to farms included in the

F27: On January 13, 2015, the Oxnard City Council approved the management use agreement with PVCWD to take “all the water they can produce, up to 5,200 AF.” [Ref-19]

F28: Pleasant Valley County Water District (PVCWD) infrastructure can be used to deliver water to individual farms.

F29: It will take 18 months to complete construction of the connecting lines to the PVCWD infrastructure that will deliver AWPF water for agricultural use.

F30: An existing pipeline runs from the Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) west along Hueneme Road and north along Ventura Road for approximately nine miles. The pipeline was built to carry AWPF water to nonagricultural customers. [Ref-13, Ref-20] (Att-07, Att-08)

F31: An important aspect of the GREAT program is the need to construct storage wells for the excess recycled water. This will be required for those periods when demand for the recycled water is less than the capacity production of the AWPF. [Ref-03, Ref-14]

F32: The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) was “established by the California (State) Legislature in 1982, and is charged with the preservation and management of groundwater resources within the areas or lands overlying the Fox Canyon aquifer for the common benefit of the public and all agricultural, domestic, and municipal and industrial users.” The FCGMA protects the Oxnard Plain by regulating the amount of water that may be pumped from the Fox Canyon Aquifer in order to prevent an overdraft condition. [Ref-21] (Att-01)

F33: FCGMA protection addresses aquifers within several groundwater basins underlying the southern portion of Ventura County. It covers all land lying above its deep Fox Canyon aquifer, which accounts for much of the water needs for residents in the cities of Ventura, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Camarillo, and Moorpark, plus the unincorporated communities of Saticoy, El Rio, Somis, Moorpark Home Acres, Nyeland Acres, Point Mugu, and Montalvo. [Ref-21] 6 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural

F34: Oxnard requires a 20% reduction of all water pumped from wells in its jurisdiction, in conformity with 2014 imposed FCGMA pumping restrictions. [Ref-21, Ref-22]

F35: Conservation water-pumping allocations from the FCGMA are being granted but cannot be used because of the drought.

F36: The City of Camarillo is scheduled to begin building a desalination plant within the next two years. [Ref-23]

F37: Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD) has identified 10 desalters in its long-term plan. [Ref-24]

F38: State Proposition One, 2014, made additional funding and grants available from the State for water-related projects. [Ref-25]

F39: No Countywide organization or agency has legislative and/or regulatory authority over all water issues.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: (R-01, R-02) Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FI-06, FI-07, FI-08, FI-09, FI-10) (R-01, R-02) References Ref-01. State of California, Department of Transportation, “Ventura County Economic Forecast, Ventura County 2011,” http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic_files/2011/V entura.pdf (accessed December 21, 2014). Ref-02. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, “Oxnard, California,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxnard,_California (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-03. City of Oxnard, Development Services, Planning, Project Description, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, “GREAT Program Advanced Planning Study,” May 2002, http://developmentservices.cityofoxnard.org/Uploads/Planning/GREAT/S ection2.pdf (accessed November 14, 2014). Ref-04. City of Oxnard, GREAT Program Recycled Water, “Water…Essential to All Life: Past, Present and Future,” http://www.oxnardnews.org/great.aspx?md=faq#16 (accessed November 21, 2014). Ref-05. Snyder, Stephanie. “Oxnard dedicates ‘world class’ water recycling facility,” Ventura County Star, October 11, 2012, http://www.vcstar.com/news/oxnard-dedicates-world-class-water- recycling (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-06. Wenner, Gretchen. “Pump problems keep Oxnard desalter offline,” Ventura County Star, March 18, 2013, http://www.vcstar.com/news/pump-problems-keep-oxnard-desalter- offline (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-07. Wenner, Gretchen. “Oxnard’s showcase desalter hasn’t worked for more than two years,” Ventura County Star, May 23, 2014, 10 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural http://www.vcstar.com/news/oxnards-showcase-desalter-hasnt-worked- for-more (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-08. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, “Seawater Intrusion in a Coastal California Aquifer,” http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1996/0125/report.pdf (accessed November 20, 2014). Ref-09. Harris, Mike; Hoops, Stephanie. “Drought moves Ventura County water officials to action,” Ventura County Star, January 17, 2014, http://www.vcstar.com/news/officials-in-ventura-county-keeping-close- eye-on (accessed November 20, 2014). Ref-10. Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County, http://www.ventura.org/wcvc/ (accessed November 19, 2014) Ref-11. CA.GOV, Department of Water Resources, “California State Water Project Overview,” http://www.water.ca.gov/swp/ (accessed November 21, 2014). Ref-12. Kelley, Daryl. “Seawater Invading Wells, Report Says,” Los Angeles Times, February 15, 2003, http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/15/local/me-seawater15 (accessed November 21, 2014). Ref-13. Lynch, Scott. CH2M HILL, Oxnard GREAT Program, “California Section Conference, WateReuse Association,” March 2009, https://www.watereuse.org/files/images/Scott_Lynch.pdf (accessed November 14, 2014). Ref-14. Oxnard City Council, meeting of June 25, 2013, Agenda Item K.2., http://oxnard.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=&clip_id=2413& meta_id=129096 (accessed November 14, 2014). Ref-15. City of Oxnard, Public Works, Water Section, “A Roadmap Toward Sustainable Water Supplies,” http://publicworks.cityofoxnard.org/14/99/485 (accessed November 21, 2014). Ref-16. United Water Conservation District, “Facilities and Strategies,” http://www.unitedwater.org/about-us-6/facilities-a-strategies (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-17. Calleguas Municipal Water District, “Controlling costs to minimize rate impacts…,” http://www.calleguas.com/about-calleguas-municipal-water- district/index.asp (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-18. City of Oxnard, Utilities Task Force Regular Meeting Minutes, Thursday, June 21, 2012, http://oxnard.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=oxnard_c908233 5f70e29ad1783d74355fabf4a.pdf&view=1 (accessed November 21, 2014). City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 11 Ref-19. Oxnard City Council, meeting of January 13, 2015, http://oxnard.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=46&clip_id=29 67 (accessed January 27, 2015). Ref-20. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. City of Oxnard, “Final Recycled Water Backbone System Study,” October 7, 2005. Ref-21. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, “Emergency Ordinance - E,” http://www.fcgma.org/images/ordinances_legislation/Emergency_Ordin ance_E_-_Orig._Signed_optimized.pdf (accessed December 20, 2014). Ref-22. City of Oxnard, Oxnard Water Conservation Program, Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/OxnardWaterConservationProgram?hc_locati on=timeline (accessed November 21, 2014). Ref-23. Water – technology.net, “US city plans to build groundwater desalination plant,” November 2, 2012, http://www.water- technology.net/news/newsus-groundwater-desalination-plant (accessed January 26, 2015). Ref-24. Calleguas Municipal Water District, “Salinity Management and Water Supply in Ventura County,” September 30, 2013, http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/meeting_materials/regional/2 013-09-30/Ventura-SalinityMgmt-PPT.pdf (accessed January 26, 2015). Ref-25. O’Connor, Lydia. “California Passes $7.5 Billion Water Bond,” The Huffington Post, November 4, 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/prop-1-water- bond_n_6097526.html (accessed January 26, 2015). Ref-26. Ventura County Resource Conservation District, http://www.vcrcd.org/ (accessed November 21, 2014). Ref-27. Association of Water Agencies Ventura County, http://www.awavc.org/ (accessed November 19, 2014). Ref-28. Orange County Water District, http://www.ocwd.com/ (accessed November 19, 2014). Ref-29. State of California Groundwater Legislation, http://www.water.ca.gov/cagroundwater/moresgma.cfm (accessed February 11, 2015). Ref-30. Farm Bureau of Ventura County, January 2015, http://farmbureauvc.com/pdf_forms/newsletters/FB-Newsletter- January-2015.pdf (accessed February 12, 2015). Attachments Att-01. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Groundwater Basins Att-02. United Water Conservation District Boundary 12 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural Att-03. GREAT Program Update, City Council Meeting, 25 Jun 2013 Att-04. Effect Upon Water Costs – Stabilized Rates Att-05. Calleguas Municipal Water District Att-06. Utilities Task Force Meeting, 21 Jun 2012 Att-07. GREAT Program Update, City Council Meeting, 25 Jun 2013 Att-08. Advanced Water Purification Facility Pipeline City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 13 Glossary TERM DEFINITION AF Acre foot – 325,900 gallons Aquifer An underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, or silt) from which groundwater can be extracted using a water well AWPF Advanced Water Purification Facility City Council Oxnard City Council CMWD Calleguas Municipal Water District County County of Ventura CSWP California State Water Project Debt service The cash that is required for a particular time period to cover the payment of interest and principal on a debt Effluent Sewage or other liquid waste that is discharged into a body of water FATW Full Advanced Treatment Water FCGMA Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency GREAT Groundwater Recovery Enhancement and Treatment GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OC Orange County, California Overdraft condition More water has been pumped out of the aquifer than has been replenished OWTP Oxnard Wasterwater Treatment Plant Oxnard City of Oxnard 14 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural TERM DEFINITION Pumping allocation FCGMA establishes the amount of water credit (allocation) a water supplier may withdraw from the Fox Canyon aquifer. If the water supplier secures water from another source, the supplier may receive a conservation credit that could be redeemed to pump aquifer groundwater at a later date. PVCWD Pleasant Valley County Water District Recharge A hydrologic process where water moves downward from surface water to groundwater Reverse osmosis A technique for purifying water by forcing impure water through a semipermeable membrane across which salts and other impurities cannot pass Seawater intrusion The use of injection wells and a subsurface barrier barrier in the prevention of seawater intrusion Secondary effluent After wastewater goes through the first primary treatment, it undergoes a secondary biological process to remove suspended solids and other organic matter. SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Maintenance Act Tertiary water A third processing of wastewater during which nutrients (such as phosphorous and nitrogen) and most suspended solids are removed VCRCD Ventura County Resource Conservation District Water Storage Well An excavation or structure created in the ground by digging, driving, boring, or drilling to hold water for future needs WCVC Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County Wetlands Land or areas (such as marshes or swamps) that are covered, often intermittently, with shallow water or have soil saturated with moisture City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 15 Attachment 01 Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Groundwater Basins 16 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Groundwater Basins City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 17 Attachment 02 United Water Conservation District Boundary 18 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural United Water Conservation District Boundary City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 19 Attachment 03 GREAT Program Update, City Council Meeting 25 Jun 2013 20 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 21 Attachment 04 Effect Upon Water Costs – Stabilized Rates 22 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural Effect Upon Water Costs – Stabilized Rates City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 23 Attachment 05 Calleguas Municipal Water District 24 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural Calleguas Municipal Water District City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 25 Attachment 06 Utilities Task Force Meeting, 21 Jun 2012 26 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 27 Attachment 07 GREAT Program Update, City Council Meeting, 25 Jun 2013 28 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 29 Attachment 08 Advanced Water Purification Facility Pipeline 30 City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 31

F40: The Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County (WCVC) is a County government organization created to address regionwide water management and related issues. It is composed of representatives of the following 76 entities:  Ten cities  Three wholesale water agencies  Eight major retail water agencies  Six County agencies  Thirteen environmental stewardship organizations  Four wastewater agencies  Four groundwater basin management authorities  Six community organizations and recreational interest groups  A flood management agency  Four agricultural and business groups  Seventeen state, federal, and regional agencies and universities  Individual members of the Chumash Tribe and Wishtoyo Foundation [Ref-10]

Related Recommendations (1)

F41: The WCVC released the 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), which does not compel compliance. [Ref-10]

Related Recommendations (1)

F42: The Ventura County Resource Conservation District (VCRCD), a special district of the State of California, provides assistance to both rural and urban communities to conserve, protect, and restore natural resources. VCRCD is not a regulatory entity. [Ref-26] City of Oxnard and its Adjoining Agricultural 7

Related Recommendations (1)

F43: The Association of Water Agencies Ventura County is a voluntary organization for the exchange of information on local and regional water issues. Its Mission Statement is “to develop and encourage cooperation among entities for the development, protection, conservation and improvement of the total water resources for Ventura County.” It is not a regulatory agency. [Ref-27]

Related Recommendations (1)

F44: Orange County (OC) has historically experienced similar water problems as those in Ventura County: overdraft conditions in its aquifer and seawater intrusion. [Ref-28]

F45: The Orange County Water District was formed in 1933 by a special act of the State legislature to protect OC’s Santa Ana River water rights. Its primary responsibility is managing OC’s vast groundwater basin in the northern and central portions of OC. It supplies water to 2.3 million people in 20 cities and water agencies. OC recharges its aquifer with both Santa Ana River water and water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). [Ref-28]

F46: On September 16, 2014, the State established the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which became effective on January 1, 2015. SGMA will require groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA) and groundwater sustainability plans (GSP) be established for important groundwater basins. SGMA creates a framework for sustainable, local groundwater management for the first time in state history. The act empowers local agencies to manage their basins to achieve sustainability within 20 years. [Ref-29]

F47: Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) was granted default status as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the basins within its jurisdiction and will be developing a GSP. [Ref-30] Findings

March 25, 2015 — Ventura County Green Procurement Policy

18 pages 10 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F01: The Grand Jury found that the Policy as written is unclear and in general has not been enforced. The Policy did not clearly identify whether the allowable 10% price preference was an absolute limit, aimed at containing 4 Ventura County Green Procurement Policy the cost of recycled paper or whether it could be ignored if operational budgets were not exceeded. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03, FA-04, FA-05)

F02: The Grand Jury found that the costs of implementing the Policy, i.e., any additional costs for using recycled paper, were not known by all departments. It was not clear that recycled paper goods were revenue neutral or within the Policy’s defined 10% price preference. Hence, monies spent beyond the 10% price preference placed the priority on achieving the goal of the Policy at the expense of operational funds that could have been used for other purposes. (FA-05)

F03: The Grand Jury found that the GSA websites for Bid Listings and Bid Histories are not consistently updated with current and complete procurement data. Thus they do not provide a reliable source of procurement information in support of public transparency. (FA-08, FA-09, FA-10)

F04: The Grand Jury found that limiting items to a targeted subset of choices available for purchase from County suppliers was an effective way to control costs. (FA-07) Recommendations

F05: No statistics or reports were uncovered that would show County agencies and departments continually monitored the cost of virgin paper versus the cost of any available alternative recycled paper to verify expenditures were revenue neutral or within the 10% price preference established by the Policy.

F06: GSA’s Business Support group, which performs document publishing for the County, uses recycled paper as the default printing option. It selected this default option after the quality of recycled paper improved enough for reliable use in County equipment.

F07: The Ventura County Medical Center experimented with limiting purchases from the County’s office supplier to a restricted list of items. This initiative saved approximately $20,000 in the first half of 2014 compared to the same period in 2013.

F08: Procurement within GSA hosts two websites to provide the public with information on its procurement activities. One site is labeled Bid Listing and the other Bid Histories. [Ref-02, Ref-03] The Bid Listing site lists goods and services intended to be procured by the County using documents identified as RFPs and Bids. A sample page is shown in Attachment 2. (Att-02) The Bid Histories site lists the results of the awards made for RFPs and Bids. Documents titled “Recap” or “Abstract” provide the data used to make the award for Bids. A document titled “Intent to Award” identifies the supplier awarded the contract defined by an RFP. When an RFP or Bid is cancelled, the word “Cancelled” is noted in the “Awarded To” column on the Bid Histories page. A sample page is shown in Attachment 3. (Att-03)

F09: The Bid Histories site is incomplete. It fails to consistently provide status on Bids listed, e.g., many Bids have no Recap or Abstract or Cancelled content. In general, no feedback on the status of RFPs is shown, e.g., the only RFPs with “Intent to Award” content are RFPs 5416 and 5389 in year 2007. For RFP 5389, the “Intent to Award” link to the actual award letter is not active. For year 2010, there is no history information for RFPs and Bids.

F10: The GSA has no policy in place on whether RFP “Intent to Award” information should be provided to the public on its website. Currently, this information is provided only to suppliers who submit responses to RFPs. Findings

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The Grand Jury recommends that GSA develop a policy for the content of its Procurement website pages and maintain the content of those pages in a timely manner per the policy. (FI-03) Responses Responses required from: Ventura County Board of Supervisors (FI-01, FI-02) (R-01) Responses requested from: Ventura County General Services Agency (FI-01, FI-02, FI-03, FI-04) (R-01, R-02,

March 05, 2015 — Elections and Polling Place Observations

23 pages 27 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 27 findings

F01: The Grand Jury visited a widespread and representative sample— approximately 16%—of the polling places in Ventura County. (FA-01, FA-03)

F02: The Grand Jury visited a widespread and representative sample— approximately 20%—of the precincts in Ventura County. (FA-02, FA-04)

F03: The training provided to poll workers is comprehensive. The material is too detailed for many first-time poll workers to absorb in a single three-hour training session. (FA-07, FA-09, FA-11)

F04: The hands-on portion of the training, particularly setting up the AVC Edge equipment, was difficult for some poll workers to absorb in the hands-on portion of the training. (FA-07, FA-09, FA-11)

F05: Three of the 11 polls where opening was observed were not completely ready for voters at 7:00 AM. In all three cases, there were problems setting up the AVC Edge equipment. (FA-12, FA-13, FA-16)

F06: Observed poll closings were completed in a timely manner; no voters entered polls after closing. Workers at one site appeared rushed but completed all closing requirements correctly. (FA-12, FA-14)

F07: Inadequate signage created confusion in some locations where multiple polling places were located in one building, for example, the South Oxnard Library and South Oxnard Center. In this location, there were separate polling places in the north and south ends of the building. The confusion was caused because the South Oxnard Center had ample visible signage but the Library did not. (FA-12, FA-15, FA-16)

F08: Missing bilingual signage was obvious in a significant number (25%) of polling places visited. (FA-16)

F09: The inclusion of multiple precincts within single polling places created some confusion on the part of poll workers and voters. In four of the multiple- precinct locations, the voting machines were not separated by precinct or by alphabet, causing ballots to be placed in the wrong Optech Insight (Optech) machine. In some cases the problem was recognized, and poll workers created signage to separate the Optech machines by precinct. (FA-03, FA-04, FA-12, FA-15, FA-16, FA-17)

F10: In polling places where the AVC Edge was operational and its use was encouraged by poll workers, voters found the AVC Edge to be understandable and easy to use. (FA-12, FA-15, FA-19)

F11: Variations from normal ballot procedures were understood and handled well in most cases. (FA-12, FA-15, FA-17, FA-18) 6 Elections and Polling Place Observations

F12: Despite a separation of less than 0.1% between the winner and loser in one race, the losing candidate did not request a recount. This action implies confidence in the County’s voting processes. (FA-25, FA-26)

F13: The County Elections Division certified the election results 10 days before the required date of December 2. (FA-27) Recommendations

F14: Grand Jury members observed poll closings at 5 polling locations.

F15: Grand Jury members observed polling place operations at 43 polling locations during voting hours.

F16: Based on an analysis of the completed Check Sheets, the top 10 discrepancies noted during polling place visits were (by percentage of polling places visited): 4 Elections and Polling Place Observations  Missing signage outside polling places (45%)  Missing signage inside polling places (32%)  Confusion as to proper precinct where multiple precincts were located in one polling place (30%)  Inadequate parking, including handicapped parking (27%)  Missing bilingual signage (25%)  Missing equipment, mainly pens, in voting booths (20%)  Difficulty in some areas, such as setting up the AVC Edge equipment, explaining voter cards, and handling provisional ballots (18%)  Improper procedures used in opening polling places, particularly in setting up the AVC Edge and first-voter procedure (18%)  Voting booths not correctly set up (16%)  Equipment problems with AVC Edge (16%)

F17: Seven polling locations (16%) had no discrepancies noted.

F18: Grand Jurors rated most polling places as clean and in good repair, with acceptable lighting and noise levels, properly set up voting booths, readily accessible voting materials, and welcoming and knowledgeable poll workers.

F19: Use of the AVC Edge machines was very limited; only three polling places visited made more than minimal use of this asset. In several locations observed, this equipment had not been used.

F20: Of the 43 polling places visited, 24 served multiple precincts: 21 served two precincts, one served three precincts, and two served four precincts.

F21: A computer malfunction in the counting room delayed tabulation of ballot count until about 9:30 PM, when first returns were posted both electronically and in paper form.

F22: The County IT Director and his team were on site at the Counting Center to analyze and correct computer problems.

F23: The County Clerk and Recorder/Registrar of Voters periodically informed the press and public of the status of correcting software problems.

F24: The vote tabulation system appeared to be working properly by about 10:30 PM Election Night.

F25: The closest election in the County was for a seat on the Oxnard City Council in which the incumbent won re-election by 10 votes out of 13,350 cast. [Ref-03]

F26: The unsuccessful candidate in the Oxnard City Council race conceded the election and declined to request a recount on Monday, November 24. [Ref- 03] Elections and Polling Place Observations 5

F27: The Elections Division certified the election results on Monday, November 24. [Ref-03] Findings

December 18, 2014 — more

2 pages

Quick View Full Details →