Section I: Audit and Finance Committee Reports

The Impact of Land Use Decisions on Local Government Finances

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 1-3 through 1-13

General Findings

1. It is generally accepted that the revenue generated for local government from residential properties does not equal the cost of services provided to those properties.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

2. Similarly, while industrial properties often generate jobs and provide some business related taxes they generally do not generate enough revenue for local governments to equal the cost of services provided to these properties.

County Response: The County cannot agree or disagree with this finding. Industrial properties vary greatly, and revenues derived from such properties can also vary.

3. Commercial properties, particularly those that generate sales tax revenue for local governments, can provide revenue in excess of the cost of services provided by local government to those properties.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

4. Properties designated for agricultural use, while requiring minimal public services, generally do not generate significant positive tax revenue for local government.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

5. Properties dedicated to public uses such as parks, open space, roads, and government facilities that do not generate revenue, generally constitute a net revenue loss to local governments.

County Response: The County agrees that property dedicated to government services and government uses such as parks, open space, roads, and facilities are exempt from property taxation.

6. Property tax revenue is limited by the effects of Proposition 13 and possibly more importantly, by the appropriation of much of the remaining property tax revenue by the state for other uses such as K-12 public education.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

7. Property tax revenue is sometimes further limited by redirection of the increase in property values to existing redevelopment agencies.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

Planning Process Findings

1. Local government policy decisions about land use within their jurisdictions are expressed primarily through the General Plan and the zoning process.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

2. In the zoning process, every property within the jurisdiction is given a designation indicating the allowable uses for that property.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

3. These zoning designations are meant to implement the jurisdiction’s “general plan” for future development.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

4. These zoning designations are determined by the governing body of the jurisdiction (i.e. the Board of Supervisors or the City Council) and may be periodically modified with the assistance of planning professionals and in response to the desires of the property owners and the input of interested members of the public.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

5. Uses that do not conform to the restriction of the zoning designation may be allowed if the property owner first obtains a “variance” from the governing body of the jurisdiction.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding with the following clarification. Uses that are not allowed in a zone district can only be permitted following the rezoning and/or General Plan land use plan amendment (redesignation) of the property to a zone district that allows the use. While use variances are not allowed, exceptions from specified site development standards (e.g., side, rear, or front setbacks, or height) may be possible. These are commonly referred to as “variances.” In order for a variance to issue, the property in question must demonstrate that it has unique physical characteristics that inhibit its capacity to meet the standards relative to similarly zoned properties elsewhere or that an undue hardship would result if the requested variance relief is not provided (again, relative to similarly zoned properties).

6. Competing pressures such as population growth, economic development, environmental protection, quality of life and government desire for increased revenue have a profound effect on land use decisions.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding. It should be noted that such pressures are not necessarily applicable to, nor equal in effect on, each individual land use decision.

7. An appropriate balance of properties zoned for each category of zoning designation is required for a healthy and financially sustainable community.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

8. As remaining undeveloped land becomes scarce, the opportunity for affecting the balance of land uses becomes more limited.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

9. If pressures for one category of use become overwhelming, other uses may be sacrificed to provide more land for that desired use. For example, growing desire for housing may add pressure for the conversion of land designated for agricultural use to residential use.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

10. Some local political figures have attempted to limit infrastructure development such as roads, water, and sewer to discourage some types of development with questionable success.

County Response: Without more specific information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree.

11. Public desire for services can also have an effect on land use decisions as local governments seek to control costs by limiting growth or increasing revenue by zoning more properties for commercial retail use.

County Response: Without more specific information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree.

12. Local jurisdictions are also required to meet state demands for minimal moderate and affordable housing development.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

13. With the significant exception of the housing element, most elements of a jurisdiction’s general plan contain broad principles rather than specific goals to be attained.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding. General Plans usually contain a mix of broad goals and principles. They also contain many specific policies that dictate how development is to be regulated by zoning and other provisions governing development.

14. Some jurisdictions have developed “strategic plans” as part of their general plan to promote balanced and fiscally sustainable development.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

15. Strategic plans seek to match general land use decisions with expected future demands for services by identifying the specific goals for economic development necessary to meet these expected service demands.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

16. As an added benefit, to encourage implementation of the general or strategic plan, some jurisdictions have required relevant city or county departments to identify in their annual budget statements the actions they are taking to implement these goals and policies.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

17. At least one local city manager has repeatedly, over a number of years, recommended the adoption of a strategic plan to deal with the anticipated revenue short falls we are currently experiencing.

County Response: Without more specific information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree.

18. Most areas in this county are considered to be low revenue generating jurisdictions.

County Response: Without additional information, the County can neither agree nor disagree with this finding.

19. Conversely, many areas of the county demand a high level of government services for geographical reasons and the values and desires of the community.

County Response: Without additional information, the County can neither agree nor disagree with this finding.

20. Resulting attempts by local jurisdictions to boost revenue derived from retail development often put neighboring jurisdictions in competition with each other.

County Response: It is true that such situations can occur, but without specific information, the County has no basis for agreeing or disagreeing with this finding.

County Findings

1. Interviews with local government and business leaders indicate that the County of Santa Cruz has a reputation for being hostile to business development.

County Response: Without additional information, the County can neither agree nor disagree with this finding.

2. Much of the property located in the county’s jurisdiction is zoned for residential use and located in such areas as Pasatiempo, Rolling Woods, and Whispering Pines between Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley and Live Oak, Soquel, Rio Del Mar, and La Selva Beach along the central coast of the county.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding. Much of the property located in the County is zoned for residential use. However, most of the unincorporated area is designated either agriculture or residential.

3. The lack of a commercial base prevents the incorporation of these residential areas into self-sustaining cities despite their individual community identity.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding. Some of these residential areas are simply large subdivisions from the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s (Pasatiempo, Whispering Pines, Rolling Woods, Rio Del Mar, Seascape, etc) that are too small to be considered for individual incorporation and too isolated to combine with other neighborhoods. Other areas (such as Live Oak, Soquel, La Selva, Aptos, Seacliff, etc) are diverse communities comprising numerous smaller neighborhoods. These communities are loosely tied to special district service areas such as elementary and middle schools. They may or may not have associated commercial areas that tend to be relatively small and serve the local neighborhood. These areas are probably not fiscally appropriate for incorporation and would not be “self-sustaining cities.”

4. While many government services in the unincorporated area can be financed through the formation of special districts, other services such as law enforcement impose a significant burden on county finances.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

5. The lack of an extensive commercial retail base also creates challenges for funding the necessary development and maintenance of infrastructure for the large residential areas.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

6. Because of this, the county has made extensive use of its Redevelopment Agency (RDA) to improve neglected infrastructure in Live Oak and Soquel.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding. The County adoption of a redevelopment plan for the Live Oak and Soquel areas in 1987 was not due to the lack of commercial base in the area. It was mostly due to other circumstances, including:

a. the rapid rate of urbanization of the Live Oak and Soquel communities following the passage of Measure J, which directed the majority of new growth into the urban areas;

b. delayed community support for the need for urban services in the area as development patterns changed; and

c. the impact of Proposition 13 causing new residential development to not pay its fair share for services.

If the area had contained larger commercial areas that generated higher tax revenues, those revenues would have improved the County’s ability to provide services to the areas. But it is unlikely that tax revenues would have been high enough to support the cost of the needed infrastructure improvements.

7. Because a significant portion of the property tax revenues in Live Oak and Soquel are thus committed to servicing the debt accumulated by the county’s RDA, incorporation or annexation of these areas would encounter further difficulties in the next 10 years until this debt can be paid off or manageably assumed by some other party.

County Response: The County disagrees in part with the finding. To the extent that the existence of a redevelopment agency and its related debt accumulation serves as a disincentive to incorporation or annexation, it is not clear how that will change in the next 10 years. Most likely any current disincentive will continue, barring a change in the current tax structure, until the agency’s debt has been substantially reduced, which will be in 20-30 years.

8. The political reorganization of the central county is not a new issue. Prior to the annexation of the western half of Life Oak to the City of Capitola, LAFCO commissioned a study of the options available. Many of the issues have not changed and the study’s recommendations would be a useful starting place. Unfortunately, the report was completed in 1969 and is sorely out of date.

County Response: The County is unclear as to the meaning of “a useful starting place.” Otherwise, the County agrees with this finding.

9. Historically, the land available to develop the potential retail base necessary to support the mid-county area was a part of the County’s jurisdiction. In the early 1970’s, after considerable conflict and discussion among local jurisdictions, this area, located in the western portion of Live Oak, was annexed by the City of Capitola, and developed as the 41^st Avenue mall.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

General Recommendations

1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz and the City Councils of each of the four cities located in the county should amend their general plans to include a strategic plan. These strategic plans should include goals for economic development calculated to meet the revenue demands necessary to provide the level of services expected by their citizens.

County Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. The Board of Supervisors may wish to consider the addition of such a plan to the General Plan or re-structuring the format and presentation of the existing General Plan at the time that the next update to the General Plan is initiated. However, until such time as the State of California provides a financial environment for local government where long range financial planning is possible, it is difficult to consider the expenditure of public funds on further plans.

2. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz and the City Councils of each of the four cities located in the county should require relevant departments to identify, in their annual budget statements, the steps they are taking to implement the goals and policies outlined in their general plans.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The County budget instructions direct each department to provide a brief overview of the major purposes and functions of the department and to list the major programs and services. These descriptions include workload statistics and narrative descriptions of the affected departments’ efforts to implement the General Plan.

Jurisdiction Specific Recommendations

4. LAFCO should commission a study of the available options for the political reorganization of the residential communities of the central county. An analysis of actions taken in similar regions should play a large role in this examination.

County Response: The County cannot respond to this recommendation because the County does not direct LAFCO activities.

5. The Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with LAFCO and the cities of Capitola and Scotts Valley, should revisit the political organization of the central part of the county. While it is tempting to recommend the immediate incorporation of Live Oak into the City of Capitola for the beneficial effects it is likely to have on both jurisdictions, the issues related to this step are truly and understandably daunting. However, this is an important issue impacting on the long-term development of the county and should be examined thoroughly. Specifically, the feasibility of the various options for reorganization should be committed to extensive study and fully presented for public discussion and input.

County Response: The County will not implement this recommendation because it is unreasonable. Until such time as the State of California provides a financial environment for local government where long range financial planning is possible, a thorough examination of this issue is very difficult.

Review of Redevelopment Agencies in Santa Cruz County

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report Pages 1-15 through 1-24

Findings

1. RDAs are intended to generate funds for redevelopment projects in blighted urban areas.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

2. Because RDAs generate significant additional revenue, many local governments are tempted to form RDAs in areas that do not fit the intended purpose of an RDA or to expend such funds on projects that only tangentially serve the purpose of relieving urban blight.

County Response: Without further information, the County can neither agree nor disagree with this finding.

3. The county and all four cities in Santa Cruz County each have their own RDA with one or more project areas.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

4. The county RDA includes the largely residential areas of Live Oak and Soquel and concentrates on improvements to neglected residential infrastructure such as streets, bridges, sidewalks, and trees. The county has numerous large fully developed residential areas. Because it lacks the corresponding commercial areas usually found in city centers, the county does not have the revenue base required to provide infrastructure improvements in these residential neighborhoods. The county has turned to an RDA in Soquel and Live Oak to, at least partially, solve this problem. In fiscal year 2001/2002, the RDA generated $9,854,577 in increment for capital projects and $3,254,876 in increment for affordable housing projects. The RDA is expected to complete its projects sometime between 2015 and 2020.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding. The County’s projects have served to improve infrastructure for both the residential and commercial areas. While expanded commercial areas could serve to increase tax revenues to support services to the Live Oak and Soquel areas, it is unlikely those revenues would also support the cost of upgrading the area’s infrastructure. Under the current redevelopment plan, the Agency has until 2027 to complete its projects.

7. Most RDAs finance their operations through bonds to be repaid through increment financing. The City of Santa Cruz RDA is almost entirely funded through loans from city enterprise funds and a $1,000,000 loan from the city’s Community Trust. This is a practice not available to county governments. RDA officials assert that significant savings are realized through this practice because of the high costs associated with issuing and administering RDA bonds. However, these enterprise funds are collected from ratepayers for the purpose of providing services such as water and sewer facilities. Theoretically, they are intended to be held for some time in order to finance future capital improvements or emergency repairs. However, it is not clear that ratepayers are generally aware of this practice. City officials left us with the impression that they had not considered what would happen if the enterprise fund suddenly needed access to its reserves. Presumably, repayment terms would be governed by the documents associated with the loans. When questioned they responded “Well, I guess we would have to pay it back.”

County Response: This finding concerns the City of Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency. The County has no knowledge of issues related to this finding.

11. Many RDAs hold property or the rights to income from property such as rents or, in the case of the Rispin proposal above, the right to collect the transit occupancy tax generated by the property. These revenues generally show up as income to the RDA. However, in the case of the City of Santa Cruz RDA, they appear as a deduction to RDA administrative costs.

County Response: This finding concerns the Santa Cruz City and Capitola Redevelopment Agencies. The County has no knowledge of issues related to this finding.

13. RDAs are required by state law to allocate 20% of their available increment to the development of affordable housing. In some cases they allocate more. For example, the City of Santa Cruz allocates and uses 25%, but many RDAs throughout the state fail to utilize the entire 20%.

County Response: This finding does not pertain to the Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency.

14. It is unclear how effective these affordable housing programs are. For example, the Santa Cruz County RDA, in conjunction with South County Housing, a non-profit housing developer, recently completed the first phase of a 99 unit affordable housing project off Airport Boulevard next to Corralitos Creek. The first phase of this development, known as “Corralitos Creek Townhomes”, contains 23 four-bedroom units priced at $287,100 and 12 three-bedroom units at $272,100. There were originally over 200 applicants who applied for a lottery for these homes, but most of the applicants did not meet the financing requirements to be eligible purchasers. Therefore, in early April of this year, the RDA notified local governments of the opportunity for their employees to apply for these townhomes. South County Housing was to begin soliciting additional applicants as well, with the homes scheduled to go on sale at the end of June.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding. The evidence does not support the initial comment that, “It is unclear how effective these affordable housing programs are.” With almost 1,000 affordable housing units assisted by the County Redevelopment Agency since its inception with a substantial leveraging of outside funds, the County believes that the housing assistance efforts have been extremely successful.

While the facts regarding South County Housing’s project and the outreach efforts relative to matching units with buyers appear generally accurate, South County has experienced no problem marketing these homes, and these new homes have been very well-received by the community as a unique housing ownership opportunity.

15. Faced with a substantial state budget deficit, the Governor has proposed, in current negotiations, to take unused housing funds away from RDAs who fail to utilize them.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding. The Governor did propose such a transfer, but the proposal was resoundingly defeated in both houses of the legislature.

16. By law, RDA project areas are limited to a fixed term of existence. In effect, this means that some RDAs are likely to be closed out in the next two decades unless new blighted areas are identified. While new project areas can be formed, changes to state law make new projects less attractive than in the past.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

17. The state budget crisis poses a significant threat to the stability of RDA funding for capital projects. Actual and threatened cuts of funding for RDAs have caused the cancellation or postponement of projects and put into question the ability of RDAs to meet current obligations to repay bonds over the long term. Although RDAs are theoretically independent agencies responsible for their own debts, it is virtually inconceivable that a local government would let its RDA go bankrupt except in the direst of circumstances.

County Response: The County partially disagrees with this finding. While it is true that the state budget crisis could pose a long term threat to RDA funding, it is not currently clear whether that will in fact become a problem. There will be some limited impacts from the cuts contained within the current state budget, but there will only be significant impacts to agencies’ activities in the event that the state continues to make such cuts in future years. It is not clear whether the current cut will be a one-year or ongoing transfer of RDA revenues to the state.

18. Because commercial uses also generate sales tax revenue, they are often given more assistance from local governments and RDAs than less “profitable” but job generating properties.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding. To the extent that the County RDA has provided assistance to proposed commercial projects, that assistance has been targeted to both sales tax and job generating projects.

19. Some high dollar volume properties such as car dealerships and “big box” retailers can be particularly profitable to their local government hosts. For example, the proposed Home Depot on Green Valley Road in Watsonville is expected to begin generating $360,000 in sales tax for the city by 2005.

County Response: The County agrees with the first statement of this finding, but has no knowledge of expected sales tax income of the Watsonville store.

20. Consequently, many local government and redevelopment agencies offer financial incentives to these businesses to encourage them to locate in their jurisdiction. This practice can result in local governments bidding against each other to direct the location of particularly lucrative businesses within their borders with no net gain to the local area as a whole. This is especially true when one jurisdiction uses its financial resources to attract local business to relocate within the local area, sometimes just a few miles in order to cross a local jurisdiction boundary.

County Response: Without more specific information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree. As is pointed out in the footnote to this finding, state law strictly limits redevelopment agencies’ ability to provide financial assistance to lure high sales tax generating projects from surrounding jurisdictions. To our knowledge, while there have been efforts by some business interests to pit local agencies against each other for new retailers in the areas, those efforts have not been successful in Santa Cruz County, largely due to the close working relationships between the local jurisdictions.

21. In the past, the Santa Cruz area has had its share of competition for retail businesses. Today, local officials are less willing to use their resources for this purpose.

County Response: Without more specific information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree. While the meaning of this finding is not completely clear, the implication is that local governments in some past period were open to using their financial resources to encourage retail business to come to the area and that somehow that era has passed. We are not aware of any era where such assistance has been encouraged, with the brief exception of immediately after the 1989 earthquake. In general, local governments in Santa Cruz County have been reticent to provide financial incentives to attract retail businesses and have worked cooperatively on issues associated with the relocation of tax generating businesses.

Recommendations

1. Each RDA should examine its projects to ensure that they are of a type that should legitimately receive RDA funding.

County Response: This recommendation has already been implemented under the requirements of state law. Under State law, redevelopment agencies are required to adopt implementation plans every five years and update those plans in year three of the five-year cycle. The plan is required to show how the proposed projects and programs will serve to reduce the blight that was identified in the original redevelopment plan that established the redevelopment project area. As individual expenditures are approved by the agency’s board of directors, various findings must be made, including that the project or program is consistent with the adopted five year plan. This process establishes the legitimacy of individual agency expenditures and projects.

2. Each city and the county should require its RDA and community development staff to prepare a presentation at a future public meeting that

· describes the proposed time table for the wind-up of the RDA project areas currently in existence

· outlines the financial impact to the jurisdiction to be expected on termination of each project area.

· provides a road map for future RDA wind-up planning

· identifies the risks to the jurisdiction posed by potential drastic cuts in RDA increment revenue should the state decide to redirect RDA funding to other priorities

County Response: This recommendation has in part already been implemented, and other aspects will not be implemented for the reasons described below. In addition to regular public meetings to review project designs, the County RDA periodically holds general community meetings to seek feedback from the community on projects completed to date and future project needs. As part of these meetings, the time line for completing project activities is discussed, and when the Agency approaches the end of its activity (2027), those meetings will focus on an orderly transition to a time where redevelopment funding will not be available. For the County RDA that time is many years away and therefore such discussions in the near future would be premature.

Because the date for completing redevelopment activities is so far in the future, it is anticipated that most capital improvement projects will be completed. The elimination of this funding therefore should have little negative impact on non-housing activities. However, in the case of affordable housing assistance, the impact will be significant. Because the need for affordable housing will always exceed the supply, the Agency provides the majority of local contributions towards affordable housing projects and programs, and outside funding sources require local matches, the loss of redevelopment housing funding will be a major issue. As the County approaches the 2027 deadline for completing redevelopment activity, it will need to explore other options to provide ongoing funding for affordable housing efforts.

As far as the impact of State funding cuts to Redevelopment Agencies, the State has indicated that required RDA contributions to the ERAF fund are one-time. Proposals in the most recent legislative session to phase-out redevelopment funding were not well-received. Therefore, it is likely that agencies will continue to negotiate with the State annually during difficult fiscal times. Given that backdrop, it would be difficult to have focused community discussions of the impacts of State cuts to RDAs.

5. To allow for the better evaluation of the performance of the agency, each RDA should clearly present in its annual financial documents its administrative costs without deduction for income from properties held.

County Response: This recommendation has already been implemented. The County Redevelopment Agency in past years did combine general administrative costs with property income and expenses. As part of the FY 2003-04 budget, property income and expenses have been set aside in a separate budget unit in order to provide more flexibility in the use of revenues.

7. Local government jurisdictions should negotiate equitable agreements to share sales tax revenues and to promote regional development planning.

County Response: This recommendation has been partially implemented, and part of the recommendation cannot be implemented. State law currently limits the ability of local governments to share sales tax revenues. Recent legislation proposed to provide a test of a shared sales tax system in the Sacramento area was not approved. The local planning and redevelopment directors meet regularly to discuss regional planning and development issues. City and County administrators also coordinate responses to specific inter-jurisdictional financial issues as they arise.

County Procedures for Determining Fees

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 1-25 through 1-28

Findings

1. In general, the county department or agency responsible for providing the government service being charged for formulates the fees. The results of this formulation are then forwarded to the County Administrative Officer who reviews and compiles a proposal to the Board of Supervisors for modification to the counties “Unified Fee Schedule.”

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

2. The “Unified Fee Schedule” is adopted by the Board of Supervisors and constitutes the direct legal authority for a department or agency to recover its cost through the collection of fees from the “beneficiary” of the service provided.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding with the clarification that most fees charged by the County do not fully recover the costs of providing the service, but rather recover a portion of the costs expended in providing a service.

3. In general, the amount charged as a fee is limited by law to an amount required to recover the cost expended in providing the service to the beneficiary who is charge the fee.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding. The fees charged for many County services are statutory and cannot be amended by the County. Those that are not governed by statute cannot exceed the cost of providing the service.

4. In practice, full or even substantial cost recovery is rare in any department other than the County Planning Department.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding. The County Planning Department, like other departments, does not recover fees to cover the cost of service delivery.

5. Therefore, revisions to existing fees are often based on some “reasonable” adjustment to the current fee.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

6. These adjustments to prior fees are sometimes based on factors unrelated to the actual costs being recovered such as the local CPI or similar charges in other jurisdictions.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding that adjustments are sometimes related to the local CPI or similar charges in other jurisdictions, but believes that these factors are related to the costs being recovered and are appropriate in determining fees.

7. The fee increase form or worksheet used by county departments to request adjustment or additions to the fee schedule, does not specifically identify the cost that are being recovered by the indicated fee.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding. On the fee worksheet, departments must cite the authority under which the fee can be charged, indicate whether the fee is mandatory, and describe the services for which the fee will be charged. Sufficient information is provided to the Board of Supervisors to justify the recommended fee.

8. Public frustration with and confusion about planning department fees are one of the most important challenges facing the planning department.

County Response: The fees associated with the processing of ministerial permit applications, such as building permit applications or over-the-counter plumbing or electrical permits, typically are very simple, straight-forward, and easy to understand fee calculations that do not present problems for members of the public wanting to obtain these types of permits. The majority of fees fall into this category. However, fees associated with the processing and review of discretionary permit applications have at times been a significant source of confusion for some members of the public.

The Board of Supervisors, in connection with the adoption of the County’s FY 2003-04 budget, directed the Planning Department to implement a phased conversion of its current method of fee collection to a largely “At Cost” collection procedure. The Board also authorized funds in the Planning Department’s budget to undertake a study of the department’s fees during FY 2003-04. The Planning Department is currently reviewing its cost estimate worksheets, billing invoice forms and related materials for the purpose of clarifying assumptions and explanations that provide the basis of fee costs or estimates.

9. Public dissatisfaction with the planning process and its expense leads to poor public compliance.

County Response: The County is not aware of any studies that support this finding, but agrees that it may be true to some unknown degree. There are members of the public who, because of their perceptions about the County’s planning process, have decided to build projects or implement land uses without obtaining the requisite permits. However, a variety of other reasons exist for people not obtaining permits. For example, many individuals indicate that they were unaware that a permit was required to do their project. When it is brought to their attention, and many times not at the urging of the County’s Code Compliance staff, they voluntarily make application to secure the necessary approval(s). Another reason that a person may build a structure or introduce a land use and may not want to obtain necessary approvals or permits is because the new structure or use will trigger an unwanted increase in the property’s assessed valuation, associated tax obligations, obligatory impact fees, etc.

Recommendations

1. The County process for setting fees should be amended to require all fees to be reviewed “from scratch” on a reasonable regular basis.

County Response: This recommendation is already in place. Each year, as part of the budget preparations, departments are instructed to review their sections of the Unified Fee Schedule. Departments are also given the opportunity to review fees in January.

2. Unless required by some outside authority, the Board of Supervisors should not approve proposals for adjustments to fees based on factors unrelated to the actual cost being recovered.

County Response: This recommendation is already in place.

3. The County Administrative Office should improve its fee request form to require a worksheet attachment that specifically identifies the cost being recovered.

County Response: This recommendation will be partially implemented. The County will add a section to the fee form to assure that the fee does not exceed the cost of the service delivered. However, as the Grand Jury pointed out, full or even substantial cost recovery is rare in any department. The County has elected to subsidize various services for the public’s benefit. For instance, if the Health Services Agency charged fees sufficient to cover their costs, their clients would not be able to afford to seek services. Likewise, if the Swim Center charged participants the full cost of the pool, few people would swim there. Because most fees are set by statute, and many fees cannot be expected to cover the actual costs of the services provided, it is doubtful that preparing additional worksheets would be useful.

4. To improve public confidence in Planning Department fee structures, the County Administrative Officer and each City Manager should require a “from scratch” analysis of all fees for Planning department services during the next regularly scheduled review cycle.

County Response: This recommendation will be implemented. As previously indicated, the County Planning Department is presently implementing a phased conversion of its fee collection system to a largely at cost arrangement fee collection system. In connection with the project, the department is reviewing ways to increase clarity and understanding regarding how fee estimates are determined. The Board of Supervisors has authorized the reservation of funds in the Planning Department’s budget to conduct a fee study during Fiscal year 2003-04. The Planning Department reviews its fees on an annual basis and will continue to do so. The County cannot speak for cities.

5. The detailed cost basis for each planning department fee should be identified and made available for public review at each planning department office.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. Project sponsors who have their permit application processed at cost are provided a detailed cost breakdown of services provided, including time allocated by position. When the department completes implementation of the phased conversion of fee categories to the single at cost arrangement method, project sponsors will uniformly receive detailed cost breakdowns of fees applied to their permit applications.

A) County Procedures for Assigning and Billing Costs

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 1-29 through 1-31

Findings

1. County government, as with most local governments, operates on a July 1st to June 30^th Fiscal Year.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

2. Prior to each fiscal year, the county publishes it “Cost Allocation Plan” to be used in the coming fiscal year. This plan is prepared with the assistance of outside consultants in accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State and Local Governments” and is based on the experience of the most recently completed fiscal year. For example, the plan used for the just completed 2002/2003 fiscal year was completed in January of 2002 and was developed using the financial data and experience compiled through Fiscal Year 2000/2001.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

3. This Cost Allocation Plan is used for the purpose of allocating the cost of county government incurred by one county function for the benefit of another. For example, use of office space at the county government center is billed to each county department based on an allocation of the cost of providing the building in proportion to the square footage allocated to each department.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

4. As a further example, cost are allocated to the Grand Jury for use of the county building, custodial services, maintenance of the landscaping at the county building, purchasing, and assistance from the County Auditor/Controller, County Counsel, and the County Chief Administrative Officer.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

5. Theoretically, the end result of this Cost Allocation Plan is that estimates of these costs are allocated to each department in proportion to the use and benefit received by the department.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

6. This allocation has three significant effects:

a. the true cost of providing a government service are better estimated for management and budget purposes;

b. the proper amount for charges and accountings to federal, state, and local governments for services provided are determined; and

c. the proper amount of charges, assessments, and fees to the public for services provided are determined.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

7. In theory, since it affects their budget, each department acts as a check on the propriety of these charges.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

8. In practice, this check is limited by a number of factors including:

a. the difficulty in contesting charges presented as authoritative;

b. the lack of bench mark testing to determine if charges are reasonable

c. the limited benefit to the department given the budgeting process which is likely to merely reduce the budget by the objected amount.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding. Departments do question the amount of the indirect costs, and corrections are made to the Plan when appropriate. The Auditor’s Office facilitates the work of the departments by preparing a Cost Plan Review Guide for departmental use. Often departments identify situations where allocations appear incorrect for one reason or another.

9. Many other charges are passed on in a similar ways based on the actual cost of services provided.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

10. Interest in challenging such charges is thought to increase during tight budgetary times.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding. County departments are always concerned with the accuracy of the Plan.

Recommendations

1. The CAO and Auditor/Controller should explore ways to encourage departments to evaluate allocated cost to ensure that they adequately represent the “benefit” provided to the department and to challenge those that appear out of proportion to the benefit received.

County Response: This recommendation has already been implemented. County departments are encouraged to evaluate allocated costs and to challenge those that appear inaccurate. However, it should be noted that these costs are not based on the “benefit” provided to the department but are based on the proportionate cost of the services which are provided.

2. Where possible, the CAO and Auditor/Controller should require comparison to commercial alternatives to identify inaccuracies and inefficiencies.

County Response: This recommendation has already been implemented. The County has conducted comparative analysis of services and in most instances found that the public is better served without privatizing the function. Examples include: rapid copy services, service center operations, custodial services, building maintenance, and debt collection services. There are many services that have been privatized or provided by vendors including: acute inpatient hospital care, specialized physician services, consulting services, auditing services, security services, body shop services, computer software and maintenance service, special legal services, public defender services, ambulance services, trash collection services, elevator services, investment advisory services, dental services, actuary services, labor negotiators, window cleaning, translator services, parking fine collections, and more. These comparisons are continually being revisited.

B). Billing Practices in Water and Wastewater Division of Public Works

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 1-32 through 1-33

Findings

1. Facilities for the treatment and disposal of wastewater in the unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County are maintained by employees of the Water and Wastewater Division of the County Department of Public Works.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

2. The expenses associated with this maintenance and the cost of new and replacement parts and equipment are financed through assessments on property owners collected through several County Service Areas (CSA) established for this purpose.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding, with the clarification that the expenses associated with maintenance of not only the County Service Areas (CSA), but also the Freedom, Davenport and Santa Cruz County Sanitation Districts, are financed through service charges (not assessments) on only those property owners whose homes or businesses are connected to these various sanitary sewer systems.

3. The funds raise through each CSA may only be expended for the purpose of developing and maintaining wastewater treatment and disposal for properties located in the specific CSA for which they were collected.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding, although, like finding #2, this should also refer to the Freedom, Davenport and Santa Cruz County Sanitation Districts, in addition to CSAs.

4. The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury received a complaint submitted by a county employee alleging that employees of the Water and Waste Water Division of the Department of Public Works were being required to bill their time to improper accounts. Specifically, it was alleged that labor and parts expended for the repair and maintenance of facilities located in the Sand Dollar CSA had been billed to accounts associated with other service areas. Additionally, it was asserted that this was a common practice in the operations of the department.

County Response: While the County is unaware of the details of the complaint filed with the Grand Jury, the County has received a similar complaint that is currently the subject of review by the Department of Public Works and the Auditor. The County is committed to identifying and correcting any weaknesses in internal control.

5. A preliminary investigation of the complaint and a review of documents provided to support the allegations appeared to members of the Grand Jury to substantiate the complainant’s allegations.

County Response: See comment to #4 above.

6. Because Grand Jury members lacked the necessary knowledge and expertise to evaluate the accounting practices associated with these transactions, the Grand jury sought the assistance of the County Auditor/ Controller and Chief Administrative Officer.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

7. The County Auditor/Controller suggested his department perform a review of the time tracking system used by the Water and Wastewater Division of the Department of Public Works to evaluate the allegations.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

8. The Grand Jury agreed to this proposal and requested the review.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

9. Preliminary results of this review indicated numerous inconsistencies between the department’s daily report logs and the corresponding employee time cards. Of the data reviewed so far, approximately 50% of the daily reports do not agree to the corresponding time cards.

County Response: The Department’s daily report logs were not intended for timekeeping purposes, but should conform with time records. The daily logs are tools that allow Water and Wastewater Division management to track which preventative maintenance measures and plant operations were completed on a given day in any given service area or district facility. All of the Department’s staff in this and other divisions, like all other County employees, are required to use employee time cards for tracking their actual time spent on any given assignment in any of the CSAs or sanitation districts, using the job numbers assigned to that service area or district and the specific task involved. The percentage of errors noted is misleading in that the difference in the number of actual hours involved in the preliminary comparison study indicates a very small percentage of difference between the time entries in the daily logs and the hours shown on the timecards.

10. The County Auditor/Controller will submit a report of his complete findings and recommendations stemming from this review to the Board of Supervisors during the Budget hearings in June of 2003.

County Response: The report is expected shortly.

Recommendation

1. The Board of Supervisors should consider the adoption of a “whistleblower program” to facilitate better accounting practices and internal controls within County Departments.

County Response: This recommendation will be considered when the Auditor-Controller submits his report and recommendations.

2. The County Auditor/Controller should submit to the Board of Supervisors proposals for further review of this and similar structures to determine;

a. whether the problem is limited to this particular structure; and

b. whether the problem is the result of merely inadequate internal controls or intentional misappropriation.

County Response: The County will defer to the County Auditor-Controller to respond to this recommendation.

Operations of the Santa Cruz County Information Services Department

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 2-27 through 2-30

Findings

1. The ISD uses mainframe computer hardware first introduced in 1990 which is an upgrade from earlier versions.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding, with the following clarification. The current IBM mainframe is a model 9672 which was first introduced in September 1996. This basic mainframe architecture has been around for many years, but later models use increasingly reliable and efficient components. ISD also supports new technology server platforms to host many new applications.

2. Current mainframe software includes applications for the Tax Collector, Assessor, Auditor, Payroll, Personnel, District Attorney, Welfare and Planning departments.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding. In addition, the Sheriff’s Jail Management and Records systems and the Court’s Civil system should be added to this list.

3. The Planning Department is in the process of migrating away from the mainframe.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

4. The amount allocated for Information Services/Data Processing in the 2002-2003 county budget is in excess of $9 million.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

5. Using the financial data provided by the ISD, the Grand Jury estimates that $1.1 million is spent annually on outside hardware, software and other services to support mainframe architectures. The exact costs for Data Processing mainframe operations versus other server operations are not delineated in the published budget.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding with the following clarification. Supporting details for the 2002-2003 budget year anticipated that costs for services, supplies and depreciation for mainframe hardware, software support and other services (excluding staff) would be $1,019,221. These costs for non-mainframe support (excluding staff) were anticipated to be $1,518,253.

6. Mainframe architectures are expensive to sustain and difficult to evolve to current industry best practices such as web access. To support these mainframe operations, the ISD employs 32 highly skilled programmers and technicians. Given the financial and organizational data provided by the ISD, the Grand Jury estimates this cost to be $3 million annually. The exact Data Processing personnel costs for mainframe operations versus other server operations are not delineated in the published budget.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding with the following clarifications. Support for the mainframe requires some percentage of time from 39 separate individuals. True costs for operators, systems software and network staff were developed by estimating a percentage of total time each individual spends on mainframe related work. This totaled $388,861. Mainframe programming support costs were developed based on project time actually recorded by programming staff. This totaled $1,096,930. Total mainframe staff support costs totaled $1,485,561 for FY 2002-03.

7. The County continues to use a mainframe internal billing structure to allocate ISD expenses across county operations. This requires administrative personnel involved in determining and allocating costs of mainframe usage for the purpose of interdepartmental billing. The Data Processing Department is charged $709,000 annually by ISD for “Management Services.” Some undetermined portion of this is for figuring the internal cross department mainframe charges and administrative overhead.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding with the following clarification. Supporting details for the 2002-2003 budget year anticipated that administrative staff overhead costs would be $117,700.

8. The published Data Processing budget does not delineate monies spent on mainframe architectures versus other server based services.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding, with the clarification that the detail upon which the budget is based does identify anticipated mainframe expenditures.

9. The ISD understands the ultimate need to eliminate the mainframe computer operations by migrating to less expensive current technology, but does not have a formal plan or time line for accomplishing this.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding, with the clarification that the department does have plans and timelines for converting several mainframe applications. New systems are underway in the Planning Department and the District Attorney’s office. Plans and timelines for the migration of the Courts and Human Resources Agency systems are underway, however, these efforts are largely impacted by statewide issues. The Sheriff’s Department also is in the process of implementing its technology plan that provides for mobile data computing (largely completed), a new message switch (underway), and a new records management system for patrol and detention (future).

10. The mainframe software applications are a combination of “in house” and commercial software adapted “in house”. These applications have evolved over a span of four decades.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding

11. Independent investigations by the Grand Jury determined that “Commercial off the shelf” (COTS) software is available for county governmental operations from many vendors for a variety of computing platforms.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding with the following clarification.

Even though COTS solutions for local government applications exist, many would require extensive customization to meet Santa Cruz County requirements.

12. However, the ISD has a policy to use Windows NT based servers for new server based applications which the limits the available options.

County Response: In the past, the County has selected Windows NT based servers to address business needs. However, it is not ISD’s policy to limit selection of solutions to one product type. Recently the County has deployed five newer servers using the Linux operating system.

13. The ISD staff has reported having difficulty finding COTS software applications to replace the current mainframe applications.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

14. Santa Cruz County is in a severe budgetary crisis.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

Recommendations

1. The ISD should consult with many solution vendors and hire a consulting firm to facilitate the selection of and migration to current hardware and software technology.

County Response: This recommendation is being implemented. A preliminary assessment of mainframe costs has been initiated with a planned completion date of December 2003. Once the assessment of the remaining applications is complete, a plan for application migration will be developed. The plan will tell us if outside expertise is required. Until the plan is developed, the need for consulting with many solution vendors is not advisable.

2. The ISD should discontinue any new development for mainframe applications and only maintain those which are required for current operations.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. ISD has not developed a new mainframe system in 10+ years. However, ISD does implement requested maintenance changes and cost effective enhancements to support mission critical systems still on the mainframe.

3. The ISD should delineate the costs for supporting mainframe architectures in the published Data Processing budget.

County Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. ISD uses itemized mainframe support costs when developing the details that go into the published budget. There is no budgetary reason to provide these costs in the printed proposed budget, which are available for review if necessary.

4. The ISD should use application requirements to drive the selection of new platform architectures.

County Response: This recommendation has already been implemented. The current ISD policy is that no software solution, vendor, or development will proceed without a thorough application requirements definition process. The requirements and associated alternatives cost analysis will determine the appropriate solution recommendation. Both COTS and development alternatives will be considered.

5. The ISD should develop formal 18 month and 5 year plans that detail the elimination of the current mainframe hardware and software and the complete migration to current vendor supplied solutions that do not require in house software development.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. A preliminary assessment of mainframe costs has been initiated with a planned completion date of December 2003. Once the assessment of the remaining hardware and software is complete, the appropriate plan for application migration will be developed. The plan will tell ISD whether vendor software or development is the best solution.

Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Grand Jury

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 2-31 through 2-34

Findings

1. Some information was unnecessarily difficult to obtain. One committee began an investigation into the operations of the Information Services Department (ISD). They received substantial cooperation from the director and his department heads. At least they received substantial verbal cooperation and actually stumbled into the following problems:

a. On occasion, requested materials from ISD were promised, but not delivered. Follow-up requests were ignored, stonewalled, routed through intermediaries or vetted through superiors. Requests for written responses were often ignored. Through this process, some responses were also lost entirely. We cannot report on the actual cause of some of these problems. Much of the feedback was informal and came from verbal sources.

County Response: The County is not aware of requested material that was not provided to the Grand Jury. It is the County’s policy that all legal requests from the Grand Jury are to be provided in a timely fashion.

b. Several Grand Jury members requested virtual private network (VPN) access to the County's internal network. They wanted this access to facilitate researching county operations and to make it possible to edit Grand Jury documents from home. The ISD department made unequivocal assurances that no security issue was involved. Nevertheless, after initial approvals, the requests were stonewalled, run around, deferred, ignored, even promised and then ultimately denied due to unspecified “concerns about security”. Pressing the issue was strongly discouraged due to the cost of the necessary “political capital”.

County Response: An initial positive verbal response was given to the Grand Jury regarding the request for remote access to the County’s computer systems. After further review, the request was denied in writing due to the County’s security concerns. The County does not anticipate or plan to provide VPN access to non-employees except for the highly restricted access authorized for certain vendors to support specific software products. The use of home computers which are not under the County’s control or supervision presents specific concerns regarding virus protection and firewalls. Anyone accessing the County’s network must have a virus free computer. Any persons using DSL or broadband for access to the internet must utilize a firewall between their home computer and their Internet Service Provider. VPN, coupled with persistent connection technologies such as DSL and broadband, provides continuous 24 hour internet connections that create the opportunity for hackers to probe home computers and potentially gain access to County networks. For these reasons, it remains inappropriate for the Information Services Department to authorize any expansion of VPN access to the County’s computer networks.

c. The Grand Jury would like to make it clear that this situation is not the norm. There were many cases where people graciously bent over backwards to be helpful. The Grand Jury is pointing out situations that should not have happened.

County Response: The County appreciates the comment and will continue efforts to work cooperatively with the Grand Jury.

2. Access to the county's internal network is important and even crucial for efficient and effective research. Despite this, access was denied for several weeks. The reasoning, we were led to believe, was due to fears that Grand Jurors would break into private areas of the county internal network. However, the Grand Jury has the authority to investigate all areas of the County, whether on the network or not. In any case, access was removed with little notice and we weren't officially informed in writing until near the end of our term.

County Response: ISD is responsible for safeguarding County computer resources, and by due diligence, requires a signed security agreement for access, and uniformly monitors all access. Access to the County’s internal network was provided as soon as the signed security agreements were received from the Grand Jury.

3. This incident was followed by a request that Grand Jurors sign a somewhat modified internet access form that contained language granting the ISD department authority to monitor all Grand Jury computer network activity. This conflicts with the confidentiality required by the oath taken by the Grand Jury members. Upon careful consideration of this language, many on the Grand Jury chose to uphold the oath and forego signing the form. Though it is difficult to imagine county ISD employees monitoring the Grand Jury, this explicit right has been asserted through all versions of the document presented so far. The Grand Jury is concerned about the county government's insistence on including this language in the form.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding with the following clarification. As stated in a letter to the Grand Jury, the County of Santa Cruz has no intention of hindering or restricting the Grand Jury’s operations or investigations in any way and is committed to complete compliance with the legal responsibility to provide requested information to the Grand Jury. However, the County is also responsible for maintaining the security of its computer data and systems. To meet these disparate obligations, the County will provide all information requested by the Grand Jury in such as way as not to jeopardize computer system security.

4. The transfer of the financial administration of the Grand Jury from the Superior Court to the county had been planned for a number of years. Nevertheless, the County proved to be ill-prepared to handle the transfer. Worse, county staff exhibited little concern or responsibility for the problems created. Some bills were left unpaid for inordinate amounts of time and that led to significant inconveniences. As examples:

a. It took nearly six months for some of the Jurors to be reimbursed for their training expenses and three months after submittal to be paid for most of the quarterly mileage and per diem expense reports. The primary cause of these delays was that the paperwork got lost and the subsequent failure to notify the Grand Jury about their loss.

b. The post office box rental went unpaid until the Post Office sealed the box. This was inconvenient.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding. The Courts did not inform the County of their intention to transfer administration of the Grand Jury to the County until after the 2002-03 Grand Jury was in place. This late notification resulted in transition difficulties. County staff immediately worked with Court personnel to resolve these issues, and the Courts have retained responsibility for training reimbursements, mileage, and per diem payments. We regret any inconvenience.

5. County response not required

6. The ISD department charges the Grand Jury $200 per month for network connections. This is $150 more than a DSL connection from the phone company.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding, with the following clarification. The monthly network connection fee is $105.00 for any workstation on the County network. In addition to connectivity, this fee covers the cost for additional services including virus software with timely updates, internet access, help desk support, etc.

Recommendations

1. It would be extremely useful for the CAO, key department heads, and the Board of Supervisors to meet with the incoming Grand Jury at the start of each year. In this fashion, the leaders would have an opportunity to become acquainted with the people who will be conducting the investigations. People do communicate more freely with people they have met.

County Response: County leaders would be pleased to respond to all invitations from the Grand Jury to meet informally. Some years, the County staff has been requested to participate in Grand Jury orientation, and these efforts have been well received. The County Administrative Officer would welcome the opportunity to discuss how best to formalize such a procedure for the future.

2. All county governmental employees should be encouraged to cooperate and communicate freely with the Jury and not have to worry about their jobs. The Grand Jury should be treated as a fully functional partner in Santa Cruz County governance.

County Response: This recommendation is already in place and will be reiterated.

3. The Grand Jury needs a network connection that can be reasonably assured of being free from intrusion by any County employee. It needs a confidential direct DSL line to an outside ISP. It will also save $150.00 per month in the Grand Jury budget.

County Response: The recommendation for a network connection that can be reasonably assured of being free from intrusion by any County employee is already in place. The County could provide the Grand Jury with a separate DSL line, but this would prevent the Grand Jury from accessing the County intranet, which the 2002-03 Grand Jury required. The County will continue working with each Grand Jury to provide them with the computer resources needed to complete their efforts.

4. The Board of Supervisors should make regular annual appropriations for outside management audits and structure the execution of the audits in such a way that they compliment the activities of the Grand Jury.

County Response: This recommendation has already been implemented. Individual departments recommend funding when necessary to employ outside auditors or management consultants to review County operations.

5. There should be no security concerns about access at all. Since there is, all VPN access to the County internal network should be halted immediately. Once secure access can be assured, then VPN access should be resumed and be granted to any Grand Jury member who requests it.

County Response: This recommendation will not be implemented for the reasons described in the responses to the findings above.

6. Incoming Grand Jurors should have a proper orientation meeting replete with a County Grand Juror procedures manual, forms packet and contact list. There should be no confusion over how to fill in and submit expense reports and other forms.

County Response: This recommendation has been and will continue to be implemented. County staff will continue to work with Court staff and Grand Jury members to maintain and enhance the existing procedures manual and contact list.

Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the County Planning Department

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 2-35 through 2-42

Findings

1. The members of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors make it a widespread practice to provide direct input into the day-to-day operations of the Planning Department. Communications from Supervisors to all planning levels ranged from phone calls and e-mail to personal meetings and detailed memos. During the time period investigated, there were thousands of emails and memos between the Supervisors and the Planning Department staff. Some of the memos simply stated that the Supervisor had no specific input for a particular permit. One Supervisor has a scheduled bi-weekly meeting with the Planning Department. The amount of intervention in the planning process varied by supervisor.

County Response: The County concurs that many contacts occur between individual Board members, their staff, and Planning Department staff but cannot confirm the number of emails and memos between the Supervisors and Planning Department staff without knowing the specific time period referenced by the Grand Jury in which it conducted its inquiry. Also, it is not clear what is meant by the term “intervention.” It is true that the amount of contact with staff varies among Supervisors. However, contact does not necessarily indicate intervention. Frequently, Supervisors’ communications are focused on inquiries regarding the status of an application or issue. Often the communications consist of no more than a request that staff respond to constituent inquiries or questions. Sometimes Supervisor contacts consist of efforts to facilitate meetings between constituents and staff from several County departments, including Planning.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, communications address issues concerning neighborhood responses to development proposals, and correctly so. The Supervisors, as the elected representatives of the area, are uniquely well positioned to assess and communicate neighborhood concerns.

2. The Planning staff testified that they are under pressure to comply with the directives given them by the members of the Board of Supervisors. The Planning staff does not like the interference because it disrupts the orderly completion of their tasks. The Grand Jury review of the relevant emails and memos also found that the tone of many of these were condescending and abusive.

County Response: Planning staff's role in the county's land use policy and development review process is to expedite and facilitate informed decision-making. The process is structured to maximize the opportunity for input by various interested parties, including individual Board members who choose to provide comments regarding specific permit applications. Decision-makers, including the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors as a whole, are not bound in their decision-making by the staff's recommendations or by the comments by interested persons, including individual Board members. Although individual staff members may at times be uncomfortable with an individual Supervisor’s method of advocacy, the roles should be clearly understood by staff. The planning process is advanced by the input of interested and concerned citizens and elected officials. These topics are often the subject of staff training.

3. San Diego County has an ordinance prohibiting the members of the Board of Supervisors from communicating with planning department staff regarding public hearings on permit applications, except within the context of public hearings themselves. See the appendix for details.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

4. Some red tag violations are more important than others. They can reflect health and safety issues as well as the more mundane issues such as fence heights, shed placement and even designs. There is a backlog of approximately 3,000 red tags, some of which go back many years.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding. At the time that the Grand Jury conducted its inquiry, the backlog of Code Compliance cases may indeed have approximated 3,000. However, as reported to the Board of Supervisors on June 3, 2003, the number of unresolved code compliance cases has been reduced to 2,127. Also, as reported in the June report, staff continues to identify and implement alternatives for achieving further reduction and ultimate elimination of the backlog case inventory.

5. The Santa Cruz County Planning Department requires that all red tag and use permit violations for a given property be resolved at the same time.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding with the following clarification.

Santa Cruz County Code Section 12.01.070 C requires that all code compliance violations be resolved before issuance of a building permit.

6. The winery in question is operating under a use permit issued in 1976. All agree that the permit was loosely and poorly worded. The winery and the county disagree as to whether or not current operations violate the 1976 use permit.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

7. The initial complaints against the winery began in 1993 and the first code compliance red tag was issued in 1997. The winery has applied for permits to resolve some of the building permit related red tags. However, the Planning Department will not resolve the building violations until they can reach a new agreement on the scope of the current and still valid use permit.

County Response: The County partially agrees with this finding. A number of complaints have been filed on this property with the Planning Department’s Code Compliance section alleging violations of Use Permit conditions and other violations of the County Code. Code Compliance staff investigated the complaints and determined both that violations, in fact, exist and that clarification of the 1976 permit’s conditions of approval is needed concerning activities having significant implications relative to adverse impact on adjacent residential land uses. Pursuant to the authority set forth in County Code Section 18.10.136, the Planning Department prepared a report to the County Planning Commission that discussed the issues of non-compliance and recommended that the Planning Commission initiate the process to amend the Use Permit for the winery to address those issues. After consideration of the staff report, and following testimony by the neighbors and winery representatives, on July 23, 2003, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the review of the use permit until September 24^th to allow the property owner an opportunity to file an application to amend their permit to address the range of issues that have been raised.

8. A Supervisor directly interfered in the normal handling of the code violation complaint against this winery. It was done in a sincere attempt to mediate between factions having trouble finding a middle ground, but in the process the ordinary procedure of code compliance hearings was subverted three times.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding. The ordinary procedure of code compliance hearings was not subverted. The Planning Department believes that the permit was validly issued, but concedes that it could have been written more clearly. The lack of clarity has probably contributed substantially to the current disagreements between the winery, nearby residential properties, and the County. This case is currently, and properly, before the Planning Commission for resolution, and the ordinary compliance hearings were not subverted.

9. The code violations alleged in the complaint were valid and supported by photographs, and by county records in the possession of the County Supervisors, the County Planning Department and other entities.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding with the clarification that the validity of issues raised in the complaint remain the subject of review.

10. The planning and code compliance staff, below the level of Planning Director, attempted to carry out their responsibilities and enforce the code. They were directed to do otherwise by their superiors.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding. The Planning Director did not direct the planning and code compliance staff to do other than carry out their responsibilities and enforce the code. The code compliance staff conducted investigations and filed a Notice of Violation on the winery property before the Planning Director had even been aware of the issues related to this property. Furthermore, staff had also already secured the winery property owner's cooperation in correcting several of the uncontested alleged violations before the matter had been brought to the attention of the Planning Director. The Planning Director's involvement was related exclusively to two issues: 1) reviewing the code compliance staff's conclusion that language describing the need to regulate certain aspects of the winery operation, which was in the accompanying staff report but not included in the 1976 permit, was not, in fact, a part of the permit, and; 2) whether a vehicle, other than pursuing resolution of the violations through the administrative hearing process, court, or amendment of the 1976 permit could be utilized to address issues never contemplated or included in the 1976 approval.

The Planning Director concurred with the code compliance staff's assessment that the permit, and not the staff report, was the basis of evaluation of whether or not violations exist regarding the winery operation. Aware of the neighbors’ concerns and the winery owner’s reluctance to open up the 1976 permit in order to accommodate possible new approval conditions, the Planning Director tried, unsuccessfully, to get all interested parties to a point where equally effective alternatives to amending the 1976 permit could be explored.

The matter presently before the Planning Commission for consideration involves questions beyond the code enforcement efforts of the department. To the extent that code compliance actions could be taken, they were and without impediment. The Commission is properly exploring the question of what to do about a permit, issued by the County, that some believe does not adequately delineate or provide protections for surrounding land uses from the activities authorized by that permit.

Recommendations

1. The Grand Jury strongly recommends Santa Cruz County adopt an ordinance similar to that of San Diego County regulating the communications between the County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Department staff. The example ordinance in the appendix refers only to public hearings that are part of the permit application process. It is the opinion of the Grand Jury that day to day interference in the Planning Department should be stopped. When the process involves any sort of public hearing, communication between the Supervisors and the Planning Department must be closely regulated, as in the example ordinance.

County Response: The County does not agree with the conclusion that Supervisor contact with Planning Department staff on a day-to-day basis constitutes interference for the reasons indicated in the response to Grand Jury Finding #1. Virtually all land use decisions are appealable by any member of the Board of Supervisors pursuant to the authority set forth in County Code Section 18.10.350. The filing of such an appeal by any member of the Board automatically results in a fully noticed, de novo public hearing on the subject application before the Board of Supervisors. Because of this very broad authority, it is important to receive comments from Board members on any concerns and issues that they may have regarding a development proposal to ensure that such issues are addressed adequately and in a timely manner during the application review process. Responses that satisfy these criteria help to avoid costly, drawn out review and decision-making regarding development applications. Finally, it should be noted that it is the Planning Department’s practice to provide copies of any project-related correspondence from Board members to applicants, and any such correspondence is part of the administrative record and public file on the project.

2. The complaints and violations regarding the winery should be – immediately and without further delay -- adjudicated by the means prescribed in the county codes: a fair and impartial public administrative hearing, with proper advance notice to all interested parties.

County Response: The County disagrees with this finding. Due to the issues mentioned above concerning language contained in the permit, a code compliance administrative hearing is not the appropriate forum to resolve the issue. The matter is now properly before the Planning Commission.

3. The Planning Department should immediately formulate and execute an equitable, prioritized plan to close the entire backlog of over 3000 neglected or unreasonably delayed red tag violations in the County. This should be accomplished by the fair exercising of all existing codified options including amnesty, correction, dismissal, public hearings and penalties in whatever combination will eliminate the backlog not later than December 31, 2004. Either the red tags are valid issues that need enforcement, or they are not. Since fines and penalties are designed to cover the bulk of the enforcement costs, the current budgetary problems should not be at issue.

County Response: This recommendation is being implemented. The Planning Department has been critically reviewing its policies and procedures over the past two years in an effort to streamline the enforcement program and to reduce the inventory of unresolved code compliance cases. Over this period of time, the Board of Supervisors has considered a series of reports from the Planning Department including specific recommendations to accomplish these objectives. In turn, the Board has approved numerous policy changes that have since been implemented, including:

· Shifting the administration of the hearing officer process from County Counsel to the Planning Department.

· De-emphasizing the pursuit of civil penalties in routine cases in favor of negotiated compliance agreements that set forth specific compliance milestones including a timeline for compliance with penalties waived if compliance is achieved.

· Approval of a limited enforcement response for minor violations.

· Enactment of a focused enforcement response where the initial investigation is restricted to the violation reported, related violations, and health and safety hazards.

· Approval of a non-enforcement policy for older violations in existence prior to 1980, with certain exceptions.

· Amending Chapter 12.01.070 of the County Code to expand the criteria where the Planning Director may approve the issuance of a permit on a property where a violation exists.

· Amending the Uniform Building Code to expand the list of work that is exempt from the requirement to obtain a building permit.

· Approved specific criteria for closing older, inactive cases.

· Amending County Code Chapter 19.01.070 regarding administrative appeals of Code enforcement actions.

· Approval of an outreach program for illegal second units.

· Approval of several other caseload reduction strategies, including directives to study the site standards in the rural area, and to propose revisions to the regulations governing minor structures associated with residential uses.

As a result of the implementation of these significant changes in policy, along with other administrative improvements, the Planning Department has reduced the active and inactive caseload by 52.9 %, as reported to the Board of Supervisors on June 3, 2003. In addition to this overall reduction in the code compliance caseload, the department has also improved the efficiency of the process. The department will continue these efforts in the coming year.

4. The Planning Department should not, without some compelling reason, require the resolution of unrelated issues when deciding a course of action on any particular issue.

County Response: The County will implement this recommendation as allowed under the County Code.

Section III: Criminal Justice Committee Reports

Review of Blaine Street Women’s Facility

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 3-3 through 3-6

Findings

1. Currently there is no medium security facility for women only. Medium and maximum security women are incarcerated at the Main Jail, where the majority of women fit medium security criteria.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

2. The Board of Corrections rated capacity for Blaine Street is 32. At the time of our visit on August 9, 2002 there were 30 women incarcerated at the facility. The accepted officer-to-inmate ratio is one to fifty/sixty inmates. Therefore, only one officer is required to be on duty at all times.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

3. Inmates are interviewed by the Blaine Street Supervising Correctional Officer after sentencing. If an inmate qualifies to be housed at Blaine Street she is informed of house rules, behavioral expectations, work assignments, and class attendance requirements. These expectations must be met in order to maintain one’s assignment at the facility.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

4. The majority of women serving sentences at Blaine Street are substance abusers. Proposition 36 the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 requires treatment in lieu of incarceration for minor drug offenders. Once a third drug treatment program violation occurs, a jail sentence is mandatory. Proposition 36 offenders will likely be sent to the Blaine Street facility.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

5. The facility is dormitory-like and adjacent to the Main Jail. Staff and inmates are dedicated to keep the environment clean and well maintained. The facility consists of 21 rooms and a backyard which includes a sandbox and vegetable garden.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

6. Each inmate is assigned chores that may include kitchen duty, cleaning, and various other tasks around the facility.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

7. The facility contains a small kitchen in which meals are prepared by inmates under the supervision of the Food Service Manager.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

8. Inmates are allowed to move freely inside the facility and its grounds. There are no locked doors and inmates are able to walk away at any time. Staff reported three recent walk-aways and stated that addiction is the main reason women walk away.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

9. Inmates have access to television, exercise equipment, videos, board games, and a library. Blaine Street inmates have smoking privileges and use the backyard as the designated smoking area.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

10. Doctors from the Main Jail attend sick calls in the morning on weekdays. The County’s Health Service Agency provides medical, pharmacy and diagnostic services.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

11. Classes are offered at the facility, many times by volunteers, in job training and high school education. Some of the programs offered include:

· computer classes

· narcotics and Alcoholics Anonymous

· smoking Cessation

· career and job development

· GED preparation

· art classes

· parenting classes

· knitting and crocheting classes

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

12. Some inmates are able to participate in various work release programs. These programs allow participants to work during the day and return to the facility in the evening. This arrangement can allow inmates to continue a job they had before incarceration.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

Recommendations

1. The Board of Supervisors should allocate adequate funds to create a medium security wing at Blaine Street.

County Response: A facility or portion of a facility to house medium security female inmates is desirable in order to provide detention for women who pose a walk-away risk at Blaine Street and who do not meet the Main Jail criteria. The County has considered the housing needs of this inmate population. Due to lack of available funding for new construction, the Rountree facility has been considered. However, this was not a viable option due to logistics and other detention programming, housing and facility needs. At such a time as funds become available, the County can explore the possibility of housing for female inmates who meet medium security criteria.

Review of the Main Jail

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 3-11 through 3-16

Findings

1. At the time of the Grand Jury reviews, August 9, 2002 and Feb 7, 2003:

· The facility was exceptionally clean and well maintained.

· The staff was very professional and at each level was able to provide immediate, detailed answers to questions posed by Grand Jurors.

· The facility appeared well organized and the staff well versed in operational policies, rules and procedures.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

2, 3. The County is not required to respond to these findings.

4. According to senior Jail staff, the statistics in Finding 3 are anecdotal because the Sheriff’s Department has very limited electronic means to produce statistical data. Conversely, law enforcement in the City of Watsonville uses a very comprehensive system of tabulation and analysis. The Watsonville system was demonstrated for members of the Grand Jury.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding. Plans to improve management reporting in the Sheriff’s Office are underway.

10. Mental state is an assessment based on behavior. There are no on-site qualified professionals at the Jail for psychological evaluation.

County Response: The County agrees partially with the finding. The mental health assessment is based upon an interview with the inmate as well as behavioral observations. It includes a review of available mental health records, relevant history and treatment, and may involve talking with others to gather pertinent information for treatment or disposition.

In addition, the County partially disagrees with the statement “there are no on-site qualified professionals at the Jail for psychological evaluation.” Although there are no Psychologists at the Jail, there are the following on-site professionals for assessment, intervention, and medication services: Psychiatrist 25 hours weekly plus 24 hour on-call availability, a Licensed Clinical Supervisor 10 hours weekly, and Licensed or License- eligible Crisis Workers 36 hours weekly.

14. As in past years, according to senior Jail staff, personnel turnover of correction officers continues to be a problem:

· Approximately 14% leave each year for other locations (primarily Santa Clara County) where reportedly pay for equivalent responsibilities is about 30% more.

· The accumulated costs to the county of recruiting, training and other turnover expenses are approximately $60,000 or more per officer.

· County correction officers believe the excessive accumulated cost is greater than an improved pay range with the resulting benefits of a stable workforce.

County Response: The County partially disagrees with this finding.

At the request of the Sheriff’s Department and the employee labor organization, the Personnel Department created a promotional track within the Sheriff’s department. In particular, previously, employees in the Correction Officer classification were not as competitive as other outside candidates for promotional opportunities to the Deputy Sheriff classification. The Correction Officer classification was changed to address this issue thereby making the correction officers more competitive candidates for deputy sheriff positions. Therefore, as a result, more correction officers are promoting to the deputy sheriff positions, which naturally results in vacancies at the lower classification of correction officers.

Based upon the County’s turnover statistics for the period of January 2002 – January 2003, a total of 15 correction officers separated from the County of Santa Cruz. The reasons varied. Based on the actual turnover statistics, most of the turnover was not due to individuals leaving for higher wages in other locations.

The County made great strides to address the issue of pay during the negotiation of the current contract between the Correction Officers Unit and the County of Santa Cruz. The then nine comparable county salary and benefit survey conducted for this unit at the beginning of the contract negotiations, which includes Santa Clara and San Mateo, showed the Correction officers 13.79% behind the market. The County’s wage only increase during this contract is over 27.5%.

Recommendations

1. Funding and staff should be sought to evaluate and recommend proper placement and treatment for mentally ill inmates.

County Response: The County has implemented this recommendation and will continue to seek funding and staff to increase mental health evaluation, intervention, and disposition services for inmates with serious and persistent mental illness.

The most recent successful example is the four-year grant from the Board of Corrections for the Mentally Ill Offender Program that ended June 30, 2003. This grant provided mental health and probation services to mentally ill criminal offenders designed to reduce all of the following: re-arrests, days of incarceration, and hospital utilization. Additionally, Santa Cruz County has submitted a similar federal grant application that may be reviewed for funding in October 2003.

3. The County Administrative Office should join the Sheriff’s Department in preparing a joint cost analysis that compares the current correction officer pay structure versus total yearly turnover costs for correction officers.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The County compiles salary comparisons and turnover statistics for each new contract with labor groups. This information is shared with affected departments and the labor representatives to facilitate negotiations.

4. The County should implement a data management system as described in Conclusion 5. It will enable accurate tabulating, tracking and analysis and allow county law enforcement, county courts and detention facilities to efficiently share information. It would be very useful for county officials to receive a demonstration of the impressive tracking and analysis system used by the city of Watsonville.

County Response: This recommendation is being implemented. For the past several years, the County has maintained a Technology Fund with a significant portion of the fund being dedicated to the Sheriff's Office technology projects, including data management systems. The Sheriff's Office and the County have also applied and received State funding for these technology projects.

Proposition 36

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 3-21 through 3-26

Findings

1. Santa Cruz County received $1,003,973 in Proposition 36 funds in fiscal year 2001-2002.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

2. Santa Cruz County received $71,414 in Drug testing funds of which 100 % was used to directly pay for tests.

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding. The County received $71,414 in drug testing funds in 2001-02. However, as provided for by law, $32,305 was spent to fully cover the costs of drug testing by service providers, and the remaining $39,109 was spent to offset the costs of Proposition 36 drug treatment.

3. The authors of Proposition 36 established 83% as the benchmark for the most effective programs. Approximately 82.7% of funds will be directly used for treatment in Santa Cruz County in 2002-03.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

4. There were 572 unduplicated Proposition 36 clients in 2001-02, of which 511 received treatment plan assessments and 392 received treatment. The Courts/Probation Department referred 91.8% of the clients. The remaining referrals were parolees.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

5. Reassessment is necessary when the defendants are placed in program that does not suit their needs. They are reassessed and then reassigned to an appropriate program. There were an estimated 398 reassessments in fiscal year 2001-02 an average of 1.7 per client.

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding. Defendants also may be reassessed if they fail to arrive at the assigned program, or drop out prior to completion.

6. The Proposition 36 Steering Committee is comprised of staff from the Health Services Agency, the Probation Department, the Courts, the Public Defender’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, the Criminal Justice Council, the County Administrative Office, the District Attorney and the State Parole Board. Members meet once a month to promote defendant recovery and help to ensure public safety.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

7. The County Health Services Agency does the assessments for Proposition 36. These health care professionals place an emphasis on treatment.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding. Staff also pays close attention to identifying needs for medical care.

8. There are 15 certified Proposition 36 treatment facilities in the county with 18 residential treatment beds

County Response: The County agrees with the finding. Although these residential facilities had more than 18 beds, Proposition 36 funds were used to purchase approximately 18 beds.

10. Penal Code § 1000 provides for Deferred Entry of Judgment (Diversion). First time offenders arrested for minor drug crimes, including cultivation of marijuana for personal use, narcotics secured by a false prescription, simple possession or being under the influence, can be referred to a drug diversion program. If offenders satisfy the requirements of the program, the charges against them are dropped. Urinalysis can be part of the program, but a positive test does not necessarily expose the defendant to additional penalties. A defendant who violates program conditions is subject to sentencing on the original crime.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding with the following clarification.

Deferred Entry of Judgment is a post-plea program. If an offender completes the program, the charges are not dropped but the judgment against the client is not entered into official court records. In either case, the client has no criminal record if s/he completes the program. However, if the client does not complete the program, the court can simply enter the judgment of guilty rather than having to determine guilt or innocence.

11. Diversion consists of a minimum of 22 hours of group education and counseling over a minimum of 10 weeks. It includes an assessment of the clients’ alcohol and drug use. Successful completion of the program results in charges being dismissed.

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding. See response to Finding #10 above regarding dropping charges versus deferring entry of judgment.

12. Proposition 36 allows an offender three opportunities for treatment. While being treated offenders are on probation. An offender’s probation can be revoked for: disobeying rules of the drug treatment program, being arrested for a non-violent possession offense, or for violating a drug-related condition of probation. They are then subject to incarceration under otherwise applicable law.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

13. Probation can also be revoked if a defendant commits a non-drug related crime, or violates a non-drug related condition of probation.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

14. Proposition 36 allows defendants three violations of any kind before their probation must be revoked and the original sentence imposed. This is sometimes referred to as “three bites at the apple or three strikes”.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

15. Additionally, if a treatment provider notifies the Probation Department that a defendant is “unamenable” to a particular treatment, Probation may recommend another treatment modality. If a defendant is deemed “unamenable” to all forms of treatment, Probation may request the defendant’s probation be revoked.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

16. Currently under Proposition 36 some clients wait in jail for available treatment space. In some cases they wait almost as long as the sentence they would have received. They then have a choice of whether they will serve out their sentence or go to treatment. Some opt to forego treatment and are released having fulfilled their time commitment. This is one of the reasons the number of those admitted to the program is lower than those assessed and eventually treated. Some clients elect jail time over treatment at the outset.

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding. Most clients eligible for Proposition 36 choose treatment over jail time and do not experience extended waits in jail due to shortage of treatment space. Those who do wait in jail rarely wait more than 10 days for an assessment. The few clients who have extended waits in jail are typically waiting due to delays in scheduling court hearings unrelated to assessment or treatment availability.

17. Proposition 36 originally placed very little emphasis on drug testing. No funds were provided for testing. It was feared tests might be used as a “hammer” to disqualify those being treated. Treatment professionals believe testing should be used as a tool and that

18. relapses are part of the recovery process. Consistently failing drug tests will result in probation being revoked.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding. Following failed attempts to divert under Penal Code §1000 and failed attempts to treat under Proposition 36, the offender is placed in a much more structured judicial program called Drug Court. Court visits are more regular, testing is more frequent, and any violation of the program can subject the offender to incarceration.

19. The Drug Court Program is used for more serious drug offenders and unlike Proposition 36 includes alcohol programs. Drug court participants typically have abused drugs for five or more years. Half (52%) have a high school diploma and sixty-two percent were unemployed at the time of their arrest.

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding. Both Proposition 36 and Drug Court are for persons convicted of drug crimes, and not for persons convicted solely of alcohol-related crimes. Both Proposition 36 and Drug Court offer treatment for alcohol abuse, since many drug users also abuse alcohol.

20. Drug Court is, at a minimum, a one-year program. The client participates in daily counseling, is randomly tested for drugs three times per week, and goes before the judge weekly to review progress. The client is also required to attend a twelve-step program and provide proof of attendance to the judge.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding. The description above outlines the requirements of the first phase of Drug Court treatment. As clients progress to later phases, treatment services and court supervision are gradually decreased.

21. Successful completion of the Drug Court program results in charges being dismissed.

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding. See response to Finding #9 above regarding the difference between dismissal of charges and deferral of entry of judgment.

22. Like Diversion and Proposition 36, clients of Drug Court cannot have been charged with a violent offense, drug sales, or possession for sale.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

25. The Sheriff’s Detention Bureau considers Proposition 36 a failure. It cites the number of repeat offenders who abuse the opportunity they are given to stay out of jail and continue using drugs.

County Response: The perceptions of the Sheriff’s Detention Bureau may be accurately reported by the Grand Jury, however, it is likely that staff of the Detention Bureau rarely see successful clients and typically see the clients who are back in jail because they have failed Proposition 36, thus getting a skewed view of Proposition 36’s efficacy. No treatment can be expected to work 100% of the time. The Proposition 36 program, like other drug treatment programs, should be judged on the questions of whether more people succeed with treatment than without it, and whether that degree of success is worth the cost.

26. The Grand Jury was not able to locate any current conclusive data on the success of Proposition 36.

County Response: No outcome studies on Proposition 36 exist at this time. However, numerous studies of drug treatment conducted statewide and nationally have demonstrated the effectiveness and cost savings associated with court-ordered drug treatment.

Recommendations

1. The Proposition 36 Steering Committee should add permanent community members to increase diversity and provide better community support.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The Proposition 36 Steering Committee requested the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (ADAC) to appoint one of its members to the Proposition 36 Committee. The ADAC appointed a member at their September meeting.

2. The Santa Cruz County Director of Alcohol and Drug Programs should continue adding treatment capacity and hold well-publicized community forums to involve the community in eliminating drug abuse.

County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Given the current budget situation, the County Alcohol and Drug Program is reducing treatment capacity rather than adding it. Treatment capacity will be added when the availability of resources permits. Proposition 36 Steering Committee meetings are open to the public and are well-publicized through press releases.

3. The Santa Cruz County Director of Alcohol and Drug Programs should seek out potential treatment providers and educate them in how to qualify to become treatment providers.

County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Given the current budget situation, the County Alcohol and Drug Program is focusing its energy on trying to maintain current treatment providers, and is not seeking new providers.

4. The Santa Cruz County Director of Alcohol and Drug Programs should work more closely with treatment programs in assessing client needs. This might reduce the number of reassessments and more quickly identify those unamenable to treatment.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. Reassessments are most frequently triggered by the client dropping out of treatment. Clients may not fully disclose the extent of their drug problems at the initial assessment, and additional information may be gained by treatment provider staff or through reassessment. Alcohol and Drug Program staff and Probation staff work with providers on a daily basis to identify clients who are having difficulties in treatment and resolve issues or find a more appropriate placement.

Section IV: Family and Children’s Services

Family and Children’s Services

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 4-1 through 4-6

Findings

1. The Little Hoover Commission investigates state agencies and their practices. After conducting extensive research, the commission recommended that the State of California and its counties adopt changes in their child welfare agencies such as CPS. The recommendation suggested that counties establish a local Child Welfare Oversight Board and a Child Welfare Inspector General. The Board’s membership should include foster youth, representatives from education, health care, civic and business leaders. The Board should have the rights and authority to hire a Child Welfare Inspector General, with the right and responsibility to investigate complaints, evaluate providers and issue reports to the Oversight Board.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

2. There have been extensive changes at CPS since about 1980 when licensed social workers were the norm, counseling was mandatory for families, and statistics were kept. In 1997, CPS was restructured and funding was cut. Follow-up counseling was cut and caseloads increased. The volume of referral calls has tripled over the past thirty years.

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding. The statement that “licensed social workers were the norm” in 1980 is not accurate. In fact, licensed social workers have never been the norm in child welfare services. The clinical license in social work, while sometimes seen in child welfare, is more common in hospital or mental health settings. Child welfare staff has always included social workers with a range of educational backgrounds, from Masters degrees (some with licenses) to workers who do not have graduate degrees. Once they are hired by HRA, a standardized training curriculum in child welfare services is provided to all workers regardless of their level of education. This training is provided by the Bay Area Academy, a training consortium that trains child welfare social workers for all counties in the Bay Area.

The statement that “statistics were kept” in 1980, implying that they are no longer kept, is also inaccurate. In fact, the statistical data available today is much better in both quantity and quality than in 1980, due to the use of automated data systems such as the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) that were not available in 1980.

3. It was suggested to the Grand Jury that the system gives up on some families. For instance, over the course of ten years, the County responded to many abuse reports regarding one family. However, due to a lack of resources, parental rights were never terminated.

County Response: The County cannot comment on whether such suggestions were made to the Grand Jury. However, the County disagrees with the statement that HRA “gives up on families” due to a lack of resources. Recommendations are made to the Juvenile Court based on the legal mandate to protect the safety of children, while allowing them to remain in their parents’ care when it is safe to do so. Although we do not know what case the Grand Jury is referencing, the statement that “due to a lack of resources, parental rights were never terminated” is inconsistent with our policy and practice.

4. Statistics on child abuse are skewed toward lower socio-economic families. Higher income families have resources to pay for legal, psychological and medical assistance. Thus their issues do not become part of the CPS record.

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding. The correlation between poverty and child abuse/neglect is a national phenomenon, not unique to Santa Cruz County. However, we would like to provide clarification to the Grand Jury’s finding that higher-income families’ “issues do not become part of the CPS record.” Reports of suspected child abuse/neglect are made by community members, and every report becomes a part of the record regardless of the subject’s socio-economic status. In addition, an attorney is appointed through the dependency system for every family that becomes involved with the Juvenile Court, regardless of their ability to pay. Families that cannot afford private health and mental health services are also able to access these services through the Health Services Agency.

5. The Grand Jury heard testimony that response by CPS to child-at-risk complaints is inconsistent. Some staff have developed reputations for excessive enforcement.

County Response: The County disagrees with the finding. On a daily basis, social workers are required to make complex judgments regarding a large number of factors affecting safety and risk to children. The Human Resources Agency provides extensive training and supervision in order to ensure that casework decisions are made as consistently as possible; however, every family’s circumstances are unique and decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. The decision to remove a child from his/her home is never made by a social worker in isolation; all removal decisions are reviewed by an HRA supervisor and law enforcement before the child is removed. In the last year, we have further enhanced the consistency of staff decision making by implementing Structured Decision Making, a set of nationally recognized, research-based tools that social workers now use to assist them in assessing safety, risk, and the readiness of parents to reunify safely with their children.

6. The Division reports a need for more foster parents for teenagers.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding, with the following clarification. The Human Resources Agency has a need for more foster parents who have the willingness and ability to care for teenagers. The agency is always working to recruit more foster parents for this age group. Fortunately, this problem has been partially mitigated by new regulations regarding the procedures for approving relatives and non-relative extended family members (NREFMs) to provide care for children in placement. In the last six months, we have substantially increased the number of children, especially teens, who are placed with relative and NREFM caregivers.

7. Foster parents need to have training in child development, basic child psychology background and a desire to help. They also need access to therapy to help damaged children.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding. Foster parents do in fact receive considerable training. As a requirement of licensing, all foster parents receive 24 hours of “PRIDE” training in child development, discipline techniques, cultural issues, emotional issues experienced by foster children, family relationships and dynamics, as well as the child welfare system and the dependency court process. Foster parents who enroll in the Agency’s Options for Recovery program, which serves young children affected by parental substance abuse, receive an additional 21 hours of training on the characteristics of drug exposed infants, effects of drugs and alcohol on development, special medical needs, how to care for drug exposed infants, cycles of abuse and addiction, and self-care when serving as a caregiver. In addition to these two major training curricula, various trainings on special topics are offered throughout the year. Some of the training classes are taught by experienced Agency staff; others are taught by outside experts such as physicians and psychologists under contract with the Agency. Panels of foster parents, birth parents, and former foster youth are also included in order to share their experiences with new foster parents.

Regarding access to psychotherapy, HRA conducts a preliminary screening of every foster child to determine whether the child has behavioral issues that indicate a potential need for mental health services. If so, the child is referred to the Health Services Agency’s Children’s Mental Health Services for more in-depth assessment. If the assessment indicates a need for mental health services, the child receives therapy, medication, and/or other services as needed through County Mental Health. In addition, when a child in placement has special medical, developmental/educational, or emotional problems, foster parents are eligible to receive a higher rate of reimbursement (called a specialized care rate) in order to provide additional care and supervision to meet the child’s needs.

8. Foster parents lack adequate training to participate fully in the court process.

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding. Although the court process is covered in the standard PRIDE training curriculum, HRA agrees that this aspect of the curriculum could be strengthened and covered in more detail and is taking steps to do so.

9. Long-term foster parent caregivers sometimes lack a support system, such as someone to call in an emergency.

County Response: The County disagrees with the finding. Foster parenting is demanding and often stressful, and it is understandable that foster parents sometimes feel a need for more support. However, it is important to note that an HRA social worker is available on-call 24 hours per day to respond to emergency calls, including those from foster parents. During business hours, foster parents may also contact HRA’s foster care recruiter for support and advice, as well as the case-carrying social workers for children in their care. If the case-carrying social worker is not available, foster parents are encouraged to call the social worker’s supervisor. Monthly support group meetings are held for foster parents involved in the Options for Recovery program. In addition, some of the Agency’s experienced foster parents make themselves available informally as support persons/mentors to other foster parents. The Agency is currently working to develop a more formal mentoring program.

10. It was reported that 80% of families referred to the Division have a substance abuse problem.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

11. Federal and State laws have established a time frame of six-months for CPS to reunify children with their families or provide a permanent plan for the resolution of custody of children less than three years of age. Children are expected to be in Family Reunification or Permanency Planning (concurrent planning), which may lead to adoption, guardianship or long-term care with a relative or foster parent.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding, with the following clarification. Permanency Planning and concurrent planning are not synonymous. Concurrent planning refers to the legal requirement that HRA develop two parallel plans for every child in the Family Reunification program, where services are provided with the goal of reunification with parents. Under concurrent planning, the preferred outcome is reunification, but an alternate plan must also be developed to provide a permanent placement (adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care) in the event that reunification fails. If reunification efforts are unsuccessful and services to the parent(s) are terminated, the child is moved to the Permanency Planning program, which has the eventual outcome of adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care.

12. After six months if parents have not met the requirements, parental rights may be terminated. Interviews revealed that repeated extensions of the six-month rule are common.

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding. The six-month time limit applies only to children under the age of three. For older children, the time limit is one year. Regarding extensions, the Court extends the time limit if there is a substantial likelihood that the child can be safely returned to the parent’s care after the parent and/or child participate in additional services. The maximum statutory time allowed for reunification is 18 months.

13. Requirements for parents seeking to regain permanent custody of a child may include finding a place to live, finding a job, and/or completing an authorized substance abuse treatment program and parenting classes, all within six months.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

14. On average, the Division places 60 children per year for adoption.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

15. The Grand Jury heard testimony that CPS staff gave false and/or misleading testimony in court and that they were abusive and threatened reprisals to those who complained.

County Response: The County disagrees with the finding. Giving false and/or misleading testimony violates the code of ethics followed by HRA social workers. The same is true for abusive or threatening behavior of any kind. It is important to note that parents and others are sometimes very dissatisfied with decisions made by HRA and the Juvenile Court, and their perceptions of the facts may differ from the findings of Agency and Court staff. Parents who disagree with a Court decision have the option of filing a legal appeal if they wish to do so. In addition, HRA/Family and Children’s Services has a written policy for complaints and grievances, and anyone who believes that HRA staff have behaved in an unethical manner is encouraged to use this process.

16. There has been an increase in litigation by parents against the agency since the 70's. CPS is now less likely to take action to remove children from their homes because legal cases are expensive to fight.

County Response: The County disagrees with the finding. Litigation against the County related to CPS cases has not increased since the 1970’s. In looking at the past five years, the Human Resources Agency notes that nine claims have been filed against the County for complaints related to child welfare services. All nine of these claims were rejected, and none of the claimants went on to file a lawsuit.

The statement that “CPS is now less likely to take action to remove children from their homes because legal cases are expensive to fight” is false. The decision to remove a child from his/her home is made on the basis of standardized safety and risk assessments for the purpose of protecting the child and ensuring his/her safety. The potential for litigation by parents is not a factor in such decisions.

17. State law mandates maintaining the family unit if possible. Many people interviewed thing that CPS’s priority is reunification of the family even when it conflicts with the best interests of the child.

County Response: The County disagrees with the finding. It is true that State law and regulations mandate maintaining the family unit if possible. If a family needs child welfare services, regulations dictate that the preferred option is to provide services while the child remains in the home, if this can be done safely. If the child must be removed from the home, regulations dictate that services must be provided in an effort to reunify the family within legal time limits. Permanent placement is a last resort, to be used only when there are no feasible means of safely maintaining or reuniting the child with his/her parents.

18. The Grand Jury heard testimony that confidentiality regarding children prevents interaction between social workers. The Grand Jury also learned that CPS broke confidentiality when students returned to school and informed specific teachers that they knew they had reported them to CPS.

County Response: The County disagrees with the finding. Regarding the first statement, confidentiality regulations do not prohibit HRA social workers from discussing client information with other HRA social workers. In order to share information with persons outside the Agency, social workers must first obtain a release of information from the client.

The second portion of the finding concerns the sharing of information about the identity of the person making a child abuse report. By law, the referent’s identity is kept confidential. The County is not familiar with the details of the incident described in the finding, but children are sometimes able to guess who made the referral because they know whom they have told about their experiences at home. This does not indicate that the Agency has broken confidentiality. Anyone who believes that Agency staff have broken confidentiality is encouraged to follow the steps outlined in the Family and Children’s Services complaint/grievance policy.

19. The Grand Jury learned from interviews that mandatory concurrent plans are not always created. The concurrent plan is an alternative that should be implemented if re-unification fails.

County Response: The County disagrees with the finding. As mandated by law, HRA’s policy requires the development of a concurrent plan for every child in the Family Reunification program. On an ongoing basis, the Agency works to develop and improve social workers’ concurrent planning skills.

20. The Grand Jury learned from interviews that CPS staff lacks training in legal and social issues related to at-risk children. Once CPS primarily hired licensed social workers. Staff is now comprised of paraprofessionals—without degrees, and interns or volunteers.

County Response: The County disagrees with the finding. Child welfare staff undergo a standardized training curriculum regarding child abuse and neglect, the child welfare system, and legal and social issues related to at-risk children. As stated in response to finding #2, child welfare staff has never consisted primarily of licensed social workers. HRA certainly makes every effort to hire as many social workers with Masters degrees as possible and supports current staff in continuing their education in order to obtain Masters degrees. Two interns per year are placed with the Agency, where they participate in a structured internship program while studying for their Masters degrees in social work. The Agency does not use volunteers to provide child welfare services.

21. Statistics that track the success rates of CPS foster care placements do not exist.

County Response: The County disagrees partially with the finding. Traditionally, data collection in the child welfare field has been focused more on aspects of the process, such as whether services were provided within legal time frames, than on outcomes. However, that is changing. More sophisticated automated data systems have made more useful data available over time. Beginning on January 1, 2004, the State will initiate California Child and Family Services Reviews (CCFSR), a new outcome-based system for data collection and monitoring of child welfare agencies. The data to be collected and monitored for CCFSR include measures of “success” such as the recurrence of maltreatment, re-entries into foster care, stability of foster care placements, length of time to achieve adoption, and length of time to achieve reunification. These reviews will make it possible to compare local data to regional, Statewide and national averages.

Recommendations

1. The County Board of Supervisors should create a Citizen Review Board as recommended by the Little Hoover Commission. This Board should review child welfare services and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, local agencies and others regarding improvements. Membership should include representatives from education, foster care youth, health care, civic and business. The Citizen Review Board should hire a Child Welfare Inspector General with the authority and guidance and be accountable for improvements. Responsibilities should include enforcement of rules for CPS, reform of the foster care program, and building a volunteer support network.

County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. In order to function effectively, Citizen Review Panels require planning, coordination, staff support, and funds to reimburse panel members for their time and travel. Without funding, it is not feasible for the County to undertake such a project at this time. In addition, it is important to note that county child welfare agencies are provided with effective oversight by the California Department of Social Services, which reviews county programs and responds to complaints about county operations and practices. The new State review process scheduled to begin in January 2004 will expand and intensify the State’s oversight function to ensure an outcome-oriented approach to the evaluation of child welfare services at the county level. Federal law does not give Citizen Review Panels the authority or responsibility for program oversight. Citizen review panels may overlap the State’s oversight role but, in most cases, cannot truly effect change because of their limited ability to impact State statutes, regulations, and funding mechanisms.

Currently, only three of the 58 California counties have Citizen Review Panels. Those three counties are Kern, Napa, and San Mateo. These three counties responded to a request for applications by the State in July 2002, and were selected to receive State funding to establish and support their Citizen Review Panels. The federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) requires that the State establish three Citizen Review Panels in order to receive funding under the Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants Program. At this time, the State has no plans to expand its program to provide funding to additional Citizen Review Panels.

In addition, it should be noted that the Human Services Commission provides community oversight to all HRA programs and operations.

2. The Board of Supervisors should designate a Child Protective Advocate responsible for reviewing court procedures for CPS cases. The Advocate along with the Judicial Personnel should thoroughly review the collected data and consider amending the law if appropriate.

County Response: The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Dependency Court Systems meetings are currently held monthly to review court procedures, coordinate efforts, and develop improvements where necessary. These meetings are attended by the Juvenile Court judge, Family and Children’s Services division director, program managers, and social work supervisors, County Counsel, minors’ counsel, and parents’ counsel, and representatives of Court Appointed Special Advocates. Adding a Child Protective Advocate would duplicate the efforts of this group, and would require funding. It is not necessary or financially feasible for the County to implement the recommendation at this time.

3. The Juvenile Court and CPS must preserve confidentiality, especially when the Citizen Review Board and/or the Child Welfare Inspector General review a case. Children’s identity should be protected in court by using initials or a first name and initial for the surname.

County Response: The recommendation has been implemented. Although there is no prohibition against using last names in court, it should be noted that all Juvenile Court proceedings are confidential and closed to the public. The only persons present at Juvenile Court hearings are the parties to the action and their representatives; no one else is admitted. Similarly, Juvenile Court documents are confidential and are not shared with anyone who is not a party to the action. Anyone who copies, distributes or discloses such documents is subject to contempt of court.

4. CPS must create and implement concurrent plans, as mandated by a 1997 Federal law.

County Response: The recommendation has been implemented. HRA’s policy requires the creation of a concurrent plan for every child in the Family Reunification program, as required by law. It is the responsibility of social work supervisors and program managers to ensure that this policy is carried out.

5. CPS should ensure that staff involved in removing children at risk has appropriate training.

County Response: The recommendation has been implemented, as indicated in the responses to findings #2 and #22

6. CPS should develop accurate statistics to track all foster care placements to determine success rates. Information should include school performance, criminal records, drug dependency, and re-entry into the CPS system.

County Response: The recommendation has been partially implemented, and will be more fully implemented as of January 1, 2004. HRA does collect data that can be used to determine several indicators of success, such as recurrence of maltreatment, re-entry into foster care, length of time to achieve adoption, and length of time to achieve reunification. As stated in the response to finding #23, on January 1, 2004, the State will initiate California Child and Family Services Reviews (CCFSR), a new outcome-based system for data collection and monitoring. Some of the outcomes mentioned by the Grand Jury, such as school performance, criminal records, and drug dependency, are gathered by social work staff and included in individual case records but cannot be extracted as aggregate data from the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System database, and are not included in the State’s plan for CCFSR. However, the CCFSR process will provide significant new opportunities to track multiple aspects of success.

Emergency Preparedness

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 4-7 through 4-14

Findings

1. A threat assessment was recently completed by OES using a Department of Justice grant. The assessment found that although there are not many attractive terrorist targets in Santa Cruz County, there are plenty of potential natural disasters. Monterey has possible targets but none compare to San Jose, San Francisco or Los Angeles. Potential convergent refugees fleeing from emergencies outside the county—along with hazards that might come into the county such as radiation—are issues that require planning.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

2. Escape from a disaster is hindered by traffic. At capacity, only 1800 cars per hour per lane can travel on Highway 1. The population of Santa Cruz County as reported in the 2000 census was 255,602. Residents alone have 227,345 cars. Imagine the nightmare if everyone tried to leave a crowded location at the same time. (Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission)(2000 U.S. Census)

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

3. The County HSA is responding to medical issues specific to bioterrorism. A coordinated response will be conducted with fire, police, health care providers and other public agencies. Surveillance is being expanded to detect unusual or suspicious disease occurrences. Information about unusual diseases that might be the result of a bioterrorist attack is being distributed to emergency rooms and to medical personnel in the county. (cdc Web site)

County Response: The County agrees with the finding.

4. The Command Post is in an isolated location but must get information quickly about county issues. An aerial view of a disaster site using a Civil Air Patrol plane, Coast Guard helicopter, a Fire Services plane, or a helicopter volunteered by a local citizen, would help in developing an appropriate plan. Currently, there is no way to transmit an aerial view to the command Post.

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding. Aerial information is a valuable tool in the coordination and management of emergency events. We have recently developed and are in the process of implementing an aerial reconnaissance capability with the Civil Air Patrol where digital images can be radioed directly to the Emergency Operations Center.

5. The Grand Jury observed that many computers at the Command Post were non-functional during the annual disaster drill. Since our visit, newer computers with maintenance contracts arrived at the Command Post.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding, and all computers in the Emergency Operations Center have now been upgraded.

6. EMS would like access to information when at the Command Post. For instance, the California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) website may indicate calls for road closures. Hospitals need this information if a patient must be transported over the hill to a trauma center and Highway 17 is closed. A new software system is needed so that this type of information can be quickly and easily distributed to the Command Post.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

7. In a localized emergency, Santa Cruz County can get outside help. However, if a disaster affects a larger area, county residents will be on our own for some time. In any case, parts of Santa Cruz County are isolated and terrain restricts access. Supplies and resources will go to larger metropolitan areas first. It is impossible to cache all of the supplies and equipment needed in the event of a major disaster.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

8. An emergency may require an urgent need for medication. There is no cache of emergency medications including antibiotics in the county as hospitals and pharmacies obtain them as needed. A medication cache requires rotation of stock before expiration dates.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

9. With only two emergency hospitals in the county, staff, resources and beds are inadequate to deal with a disaster. In an emergency, Disaster Designated Medical Facilities supply medical care for patients with minor injuries to prevent overloading hospital emergency rooms. Disaster Dedicated Medical Facilities are asked to have materials on hand to care for 50 patients for three days; however, they have not made that financial commitment.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

10. Homeland Security has given two small grants for first responders, administered by OES. Local officials identify the emergency needs of the community and request support from both the state and the federal government. FEMA is a funding contributor but the State OES, and the County OES, coordinate local disaster relief efforts. (OES Web site) (Emergency Management Plan)

County Response: The County partially agrees with the finding. County OES is currently managing seven grants related to Homeland Security totaling over $1.3 million, with additional grants anticipated in the 2004 Federal fiscal year.

11. Budget cuts are expected to hurt. General Services is going through a horrific budget process right now. The Grand Jury heard that budgets are likely to be smaller—probably countywide. EMS has some state funding but most funding is from the county. EMS applies for grants when possible and recently received a trauma grant. When staff is out on vacation or due to illness, work must be delegated to the department head, as there is no staff relief.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

12. Most of the money for emergency services after 9/11 has been for equipment and training, not staffing. Approximately $8000 has come to the county for a CERT program. The administrative cost to set up the program was about $800, which was spent on the first meeting.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

13. Emergency planning staff is limited. Each county in California has the same disaster planning requirements, regardless of size. Large counties with more staff have less trouble fulfilling state mandated activities. Santa Cruz County, the second smallest county geographically in the state, has fewer staff. OES and Emergency Services each have a staff of three, comprised of a manager plus two staff. According to staff, this is inadequate.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding in terms of the number of positions, but does not believe that this staffing level is inadequate.

14. Currently, there are small Homeland Security grants to be administrated by OES. Writing proposals and administration of the grants is time consuming. Although 80% of new issues involve homeland security, there is no new staff.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

15. Civilians can be recruited and trained as CERT teams that, in essence, will be auxiliary responders. CERT teams can provide immediate assistance to victims in their area, organize spontaneous volunteers who have not had training, and collect disaster intelligence that will assist professional responders with prioritization and allocation of resources following a disaster. Training was made available nationally by FEMA in 1993. A new FEMA grant is earmarked for a Santa Cruz area CERT program. (FEMA CERT Web site)

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

16. Aptos/La Selva Beach Fire District is currently recruiting and training CERT volunteers to safely help themselves, and their neighbors in an emergency. Training topics include: disaster fire suppression, hazardous materials, disaster medical operations, light search and rescue operations, disaster psychology and team organization. A new CERT program is also forming in San Lorenzo Valley.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

17. The Disaster Service Workers Program insurance funding has been recently reinstated in the State budget. During a disaster, trained volunteers are authorized to work under a declared state of emergency. EMS has a list of skilled people they can call upon to do medical work. RACES members also qualify as Disaster Service Workers.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

18. Santa Cruz Red Cross receives no money from the American Red Cross or from federal agencies such as FEMA or Homeland Security. Funding from United Way is only available through the next 18 months due to a change that allows payment for fixed shelters only. Although some materials come from the American Red Cross, Santa Cruz Red Cross must do local fundraising to make up for the lack of federal funding.

County Response: The County has no jurisdiction over the Red Cross and defers to that agency to respond to this finding.

19. Red Cross Disaster Services provides shelter and food to disaster victims, supplementing the county’s mobile canteen services and offering shelter for 100-1000 people. Red Cross sheltered 1700 people at the Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Emergency supplies in moveable containers are located throughout the county such as at the airport, and fire stations. Some of the sixty-seven local nurses who volunteer with Red Cross work on pandemic and other disasters.

County Response: The County has no jurisdiction over the Red Cross and defers to that agency to respond to this finding.

20. Red Cross conducts town hall meetings and provides speakers and training to neighborhood groups. Topics include sheltering in place, disaster and pets, seniors, disabled, and HAZMAT. Red Cross conducts disaster training using volunteer trainers at community colleges. Red Cross also conducts shelter drills and is working on a disaster compliance plan.

County Response: The County has no jurisdiction over the Red Cross and defers to that agency to respond to this finding.

21. Funding and project coordination of community groups are tied to a number of entities. For example, community group neighbors are working with a FEMA grant to raise the elevation of their houses to be above flood levels.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

22. OES is interested in establishing and working with more community groups. OES and Red Cross will help train community groups interested in mobilizing their own disaster planning efforts. Community groups help fill some gaps of OES functions in planning and relief efforts. They also provide needed eyes in the field for information flow.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

23. Consistent and accurate information will reduce public panic and rumors. To address this issue, EMS is preparing fact sheets on how to manage specific emergency situations such as; shelter in place, food and water safety and hygiene, and others regarding power outages and evacuations tips. Currently information can be sent to the media, read over phone, or put in libraries.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

24. Recently, the phone company agreed to reinstate the basic first aid page in the phone book. However, it is currently somewhat hard to find and incomplete.

County Response: The County agrees with the finding that the information has been reinstated and appreciates the phone company’s partnership.

Recommendations

1. OES should acquire digital cameras for the Command Post for use in the field with a wireless method of transmitting the images.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. Digital cameras have been acquired with grant funds and a method of transmitting digital images from the field directly to the Emergency Operations Center has been developed, tested and is projected to be fully implemented by the end of calendar year 2003.

2. OES should purchase communications software for the Command Post that will function during emergency situations and facilitate information access and sharing.

County Response: This recommendation will be implemented. While “communications” software is not a priority need, OES is in the process of acquiring incident management software for the Emergency Operations Center through Homeland Security Grant funding. As well, these grants will provide funds for acquisition of the same software in each of the city’s Emergency Operations Centers, County Fire’s Emergency Communications Center, as well as the Sheriff’s Office and City of Santa Cruz incident command vehicles to allow all emergency management team members a vastly improved ability to share and manage real-time information and resources. Acquisition, installation and training is scheduled to be completed by the end of calendar year 2003.

3. EMS should establish a local supply of enough emergency medications to last for at least three days to be kept at a central location. Stock should be rotated as needed.

County Response: This recommendation is being implemented. HSA maintains an inventory of selected medications held by local pharmacies. This inventory shows very limited supplies of agents that might be needed in a disaster or bioterrorist event.

The Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) is maintained at regional sites in the nation, and should be available within 24 hours to our county for a bioterrorist or disaster event. The county's All-hazards Response Plan includes procedures to access the SNS.

HAS, through its EMS/Homeland Security funding and in consultation with the Emergency Medical Care Commission and our ambulance partner, AMR-West, is establishing a cache of equipment and medical supplies, including selected emergency medications, in support of our rapid response capability. Numerous items already have been ordered from the current HSG grant. HSA, with continued grant support, will work with adjacent counties and local medical institutions to identify and build up a supply of critical medications, and to rotate the stock in a timely manner to prevent expiration and wastage. This plan is a deliverable within our Bioterrorism Response Plan.

4. OES should add staff to write grant proposals and implement grants. OES should possibly share this staff with EMS. EMS should, at a minimum, maintain staffing.

County Response: This recommendation will be considered as part of the 2004-05 budget hearings. It may be that additional staff is needed, but the County is currently unable to finance the cost to add staff since existing grant funds are very restrictive on providing funding for staff resources and County financial resources are extremely limited.

Emergency Medical Services program staff focuses specifically on oversight of the emergency medical response infrastructure in the County. Sharing the staff would not be effective since the EMS mission is significantly different from that of the Office of Emergency Services.

5. The county should obtain funding from FEMA for CERT training programs.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The Office of Emergency Services has recently been awarded a CERT grant from the Governor’s Office which is in final contract review. The grant agreement will be recommended to the Board of Supervisors in September. OES has also transmitted a Notice of Intent to submit an application for 2003 CERT grant funds. Grant application packages are scheduled to be delivered to OES in September.

6. The Board of Supervisors should encourage formation and success of community groups by providing lists, training opportunities and information about properties from the county Assessor’s Office and parcel maps.

County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The County fully supports development and involvement of community groups in emergency planning activities. The Office of Emergency Services and its partner agencies make every effort to provide these groups with applicable information in support of their efforts.

7. EMS should develop a public awareness campaign with a broader distribution of information to prepare citizens to be self-sufficient for at least seventy-two hours. Information should be circulated as outlined in conclusion 10, including working with the telephone company to improve emergency information and utility companies to mail emergency information inserts.

County Response: This recommendation is being implemented. Focus Area F under the Federal Bioterrorism Planning Grant process stipulates numerous deliverables related to Public Information and Communication in disaster situations. A statewide process is under development, in part through new centers established at UCLA and UC-Berkeley, to help local agencies address this requirement. Print, radio, television and advertising vehicles are being expanded to quickly alert the public to safety and public health issues.

Our County, in partnership with the Santa Cruz Sentinel, will be preparing a newspaper insert for delivery to all households in the county that will contain the types of information called for in this recommendation. Fact Sheets including Food and Water Safety, Evacuation, and Shelter in Place are available and can be quickly reproduced and distributed, depending on the nature of the disaster and the self-help modalities that will be most effective. Video productions are being developed at national and state levels to aid in public education via television in the event of a terrorist or natural disaster. Resource materials are available now on federal, state and local websites for individual residents to access and these can also be adapted for mass distribution as flyers. A community TV broadcast is being developed in September to further educate the public.

With scores of possible scenarios for natural disasters as well as chemical, biological, radiological and blast attacks by terrorists, it is not possible to provide specific guidance for every possibility. However, resource materials are being developed at multiple levels of government that can be disseminated quickly for the most likely events.

The First Aid and Survival Guide in the SBC Smart YELLOW Pages (B1 - B6) represents six pages of excellent, though limited, information. The Bioterrorism Preparedness Plan will address the Grand Jury recommendations to enhance this and other methods of educating and informing the public about supplies and medications to have on-hand in emergencies.

Section: VI: Special Districts Committee Reports

Policies Regarding Fire Hazards in Environmentally Sensitive Areas

2002-03 Grand Jury Final Report, Pages 6-1 through 6-4

Findings

1. Santa Cruz County has not had a major, extended-day fire, since the 1948 Pine Mountain Fire. Fire officials report that the potential for a very large and damaging fire on the scale of the Oakland Hills and Lexington Reservoir fires in Santa Cruz County is high.

County Response: The County partially agrees. While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948. For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Hill Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying many Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 2002 Croy Fire, the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire.

2. Lack of fire has contributed to an increase of ladder fuels.

County Response: The County partially agrees. When wildland fires do not regularly reduce ground vegetation, this leads to an increase in ladder fuels in fire-dependent ecosystems. Santa Cruz County’s redwood, pine, and fir stands, and its various brush and chaparral areas, are in fire-dependent ecosystems. But a lack of fire is only part of the equation, as failure to otherwise manage the vegetation also contributes to overgrown ladder fuels.

3. Ladder fuels are combustible material, close to the ground such as grass or weeds merging with brush or vines, which climb into the trees creating a ladder for fire. The amount of ladder fuel is one of the factors that helps fires spread.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

4. Ladder fuels are a problem throughout the county.

County Response: The County agrees. Ladder fuels are a problem in the areas that may be classified as fire-dependent ecosystems, as discussed in the response to finding #2, above.

5. Vegetation is denser than it was in the 1960s due to increased landscaping and development that encroaches on rural areas.

County Response: The County partially agrees. Generally, the vegetation in this County is denser than it was in the 1960’s. But this is not automatically attributable to either landscaping or development that encroaches on rural areas.

While some landscaping may add to the fuel-load and otherwise be more volatile than natural fuels, other landscaping reduces the fuel-load. It can reduce the fuel-load and resulting fire hazard when it enhances the defensible space around structures by replacing dense non-native vegetation with native fire resistive vegetation and by maintaining landscaping as part of a greenbelt.

Similarly, development can improve the fuel-load because it typically results in clearing or thinning specified areas and because required access routes serve as further clearances and fuel breaks. The increase in vegetation density is more accurately ascribed to a lack of fire in fire-dependant ecosystems (as discussed above in the response to finding #2) and reductions in timber harvesting (as discussed below in the response to finding #6).

6. Ladder fuels are a particular problem in environmentally sensitive areas, because clear-cutting and controlled burns are generally not allowed in these areas.

County Response: The County partially agrees, with the following clarifications. Clear-cutting means completely stripping trees from a portion of land, which does decrease the ladder fuels that are stripped along with the trees. Clear-cutting is not permitted anywhere in this County.

Selective harvesting, however, is permitted in certain areas. Selective harvesting thins overcrowded stands and thereby serves as an effective method to reduce ladder fuels and other vegetation likely to increase the hazard of a wildland conflagration.

Prescribed burning has been, and continues to be, used to manage vegetation in various areas throughout the County. Much of the prescribed burning is specifically conducted within environmentally sensitive areas to restore and enhance the native growth, while ridding the lands of harmful non-native species. Prescribed burning can addresses both environmental and fire safety concerns.

7. In Santa Cruz County there are numerous environmentally sensitive areas, which are habitats for endangered species (e.g. the Santa Cruz Tar Plant and the Mount Hermon June Beetle). Many of these habitats are located in high-risk fire areas.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

8. Currently, county fire officials and the US Fish and Wildlife Service are developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan that identifies where environmentally sensitive and high fire risk areas overlap. The HCP describes how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding, with the following clarifications. County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The Grand Jury may be referring to a grant funded effort to produce two G.I.S. data layers for maps to assist with locating those areas in the County that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban-wildland interface is, and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas in the County. This is the first phase of an effort to be coordinated by the County Office of Emergency Services to develop an HCP that addresses fire protection efforts in sensitive areas. No local fire agencies are involved in this effort. The agencies that are involved include: the California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the California Native Plant Society. Local fire agencies may be consulted at a later date if the grant funds are renewed for future phases.

9. Local fire departments can issue citations to homeowners for not clearing brush, a violation of fire regulations.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding, with the following amplification. The fire service can issue citations to homeowners for their failure to clear hazardous vegetation. Many of the departments, however, do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. The Santa Cruz County Fire Department has access to a full-time peace officer who works for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, but this is the only person within these agencies’ jurisdictions that has the ability to issue citations for vegetation clearance violations. The peace officer currently gets involved only when an owner has failed to comply with three warnings issued by engine company personnel. To enhance present enforcement capabilities, the Santa Cruz County Fire Department is currently working on getting more staff qualified to issue citations for fire code and ordinance violations.

10. Fines for violating fire regulations for not clearing brush range from $100 to $250. Fire officials report such low fines lead to a lack of compliance.

County Response: The County disagrees. The Public Resources Code imposes fines for failure to comply with clearance requirements as follows: $100 to $500 for the first offense; $250 to $500 for the second offense, and $500 or the cost of forced abatement for a third offense. In addition, the Santa Cruz County Code provides penalties in accordance with the County bail schedule, ranging from $170 to $1,700. The County Code also states that each day may constitute a separate offense and that a fine may be treble the cost of forced abatement. Finally, the Health and Safety Code allows fines of up to $1,000 for a willful violation.

11. Conversely, the County Planning Department has the ability to red tag a homeowner for clearing brush in an environmentally sensitive area.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding.

12. In the past, Santa Cruz County had a fire safety committee that included fire officials, environmental groups, and homeowners whose purpose was to have a community fire safety educational program. Internal conflicts and ineffectiveness caused the group to disband.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding with the note that the Fire Safety Council was instrumental in obtaining funding for a large wood chipper, education materials, and support on some fuel modification projects within the County.

13. San Mateo County has created a fire safety committee organized by the fire chief’s association. This fire safety program is considered by fire experts to be very successful.

County Response: The County agrees with this finding, noting, however, that this was the model for the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council, which disbanded as discussed in the responses to finding #12 and recommendation # 4.

Recommendations

1. The Santa Cruz County Fire Districts and the Office of Emergency Preparedness should complete the Habitat Conservation Project.

County Response: This recommendation is being implemented. The County Office of Emergency Services is the lead agency in coordinating the development of the HCP in collaboration with local fire agencies, the California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Native Plant Society, and affected property owners.

2. The Santa Cruz County Fire Districts, the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the Environmental Section of the Planning Department should agree upon policy and create written instructions based upon the policy to be given to homeowners by all governmental agencies.

County Response: This recommendation is being implemented. The County agrees that clear direction should be given to property owners involved in vegetation management projects. Currently, local fire agencies, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and local resource specialists collaborate to develop best practices for individual vegetation management projects pending the completion of the HCP and federal approval of the overall vegetation management program. Ultimately, the best management practices developed in the HCP process and as included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife permit for fuel reduction projects will determine the policies and practices to be followed by property owners under the direction of local fire agencies. Once these policies have been determined, consistent written instructions can be provided to homeowners.