Santa Cruz County

Grand Jury

2005- 2006

Final Report

June 2006

Greetings Citizens of Santa Cruz County,

It is with great pride that we present the 2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final

Report. State law charges the Grand Jury with review and oversight of county agencies

and entities that receive county funds. We hope that the information presented, the issues

raised, and the problems found will contribute to a more responsive, accessible, and

responsible government. The Grand Jury believes this report will add to your

understanding of issues within Santa Cruz County.

This report is a compilation of information provided by your public officials, research by

the Grand Jury, and the insights we gained during our interviews. Our charge is to make

sure the information is correct and presented to you without bias. We have done our best

to be objective, and it is our great hope that much good comes from our efforts.

For Santa Cruz County and the governmental entities within it, the current budget picture

is challenging, and we must all do our part to ensure we make the most of our limited

funds. We all have a responsibility to ensure we have the best, most efficient government

possible.

We would like to thank the various entities and employees that took the time to educate

us and answer our questions. I would also like to thank the fifteen remaining jurors ( some

of whom were alternates who stepped in mid- year) who have given generously of their

most precious commodity, their own time. We are anxious for your response.

Sincerely,

Maxine R. McNamara, Foreperson

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury

i

Santa Cruz County Grand Jury

2005- 2006 Final Report

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Santa Cruz Grand Jury

Grand Jurors

Section 1: Audit and Finance Committee Reports

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

1 - 1

Section 2: Cities and County Committee Report

Watsonville Municipal Airport: Headed for a Crash?

2 - 1

Section 3: Criminal Justice Committee Reports

Santa Cruz County Jails Review

3 - 1

The Taser – Don’t Be Shocked

3 - 25

Section 4: Health and Human Services Committee Report

Domestic Violence: Have We Kept the Promise?

4 - 1

Section 5: Schools and Libraries Committee Report

No report included

5 - 1

Section 6: Special Districts Committee Reports

No report included

6 - 1

Section 7: Instructions for Respondents 7 - 1

ii

This page intentionally left blank.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Introduction to the Santa Cruz County

Grand Jury

Two Types of Grand Juries in Santa Cruz County

As with many California counties, Santa Cruz County has two types of Grand Juries. The

regular, or civil, Grand Jury is an investigative body that serves for one year. There are

nineteen members on the jury. The civil Grand Jury is not involved with trials but rather

serves as a watchdog over local government and other tax- supported entities.

The other Grand Jury is a criminal Grand Jury that deals with issuing indictments

( charging a person with a criminal or public offense). This jury is called up on a case- by-case

basis.

Duties and Powers of the Civil Grand Jury

The Civil Grand Jury has three primary functions:

• to randomly audit local governmental agencies and officials;

• to publish its investigative findings and recommendations toward improving those

governmental operations in the interest of the community being served; and

• to investigate citizens' complaints

The Civil Grand Jury investigates local government agencies and officials to evaluate if

they are acting properly. If a Grand Jury determines that they are not, it has various

options. The most frequently used option is the presentation of a report outlining the

Grand Jury's findings and recommendations in the matter. Such reports are public and

sometimes attract media attention. Agencies or elected officials discussed in the report

must respond specifically to the report's findings and recommendations.

Citizens may file complaints with the Grand Jury to request that it investigate what they

perceive as wrongdoing by a public agency, such as a school district or a police

department. The Jury will decide if the complaint has merit and is not obligated to pursue

the complaint. County complaint forms are available from the following address:

Santa Cruz County Grand Jury

701 Ocean Street, Room 318- I

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

( 831) 454- 2099

FAX ( 831) 454- 3387

grandjury@ co. santa- cruz. ca. us

www. co. santa- cruz. ca. us/ grandjury

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

This page intentionally left blank.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Grand Jurors

2005- 2006

Maxine R. McNamara, Foreperson

Mary Bassano

Paula Berman

Mary Carlon

William H. Fitler, Jr.

Marilyn Humphrey

Yamindira KanagaSundaram

Rick Lofvendahl

Raymond McDonald

Joseph Moreno

Joseph Pedota

Ian Sanderson

George Sisson

Barbara Smith

Des Stuart- Alexander

John Thiemann

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

This page intentionally left blank.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury

Back Row: Ray McDonald, Joe Pedota, Ian Sanderson, Bill Fitler, George Sisson, Joe Moreno, John Thiemann

Middle Row: Marilyn Humphrey, Mary Bassano, Yamindira KanagaSundaram, Barbara Smith, Rick Lofvendahl

Front Row: Des Stuart- Alexander, Mary Carlon, Maxine McNamara, Paula Berman

Santa Cruz County

Grand Jury

Final Report:

Section 1

Audit and Finance Committee Report

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 1

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H

Santa Cruz City Schools

Synopsis

Bond Measures E and H, passed in 1998, provided funds for much- needed renovation

and modernization of schools within the Santa Cruz City Schools District. Overall, the

Grand Jury found school site personnel pleased with the work completed at their schools,

and acknowledges the scope and complexity of the construction projects undertaken in

the last eight years. Those projects, however, took longer and cost more than original

estimates, and students are now occupying classrooms that have not been certified by the

Division of the State Architect as being in compliance with all Code of Regulations, Title

24 provisions for structural, life/ fire safety, and ADA projects.

The Grand Jury discovered that Measure E bonds were sold for more than the voter-approved

$ 28 million, and questions remain about the 2005 bond refinancing. The Grand

Jury is concerned that: bond money was spent on district administrative offices; lease

revenues generated from sites that were renovated using bond funds went into the Santa

Cruz City Schools general fund; bond funds and property tax deposits have earned and

will continue to earn interest that could be used to reduce bond debt; and promises to

keep the public well- informed about the bond projects have not been kept.

Definitions

ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act

Alternate: an optional component of a construction project

BAN: Bond Anticipation Note; a note issued in anticipation of later issuance of bonds,

usually payable from the proceeds of the sale of the bonds anticipated

BOC: Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Oversight Committee

California Code of Regulations ( CCR), Title 24: also known as the California Building

Standards Code. Public school construction in California is governed by these building

standards.

Change Order: a written order that modifies the plans, specifications, or price of a

signed construction contract agreement. Change orders can be initiated for a variety of

reasons, including unforeseen conditions, owner- requested changes, design errors or

omissions, contractor error, and weather- related problems during construction.

DSA: Division of the State Architect

DSA Form- 5: the official DSA form that details the project inspector’s qualifications

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 2 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

IOR: Inspector of Record; a state- certified inspector that performs state- mandated site

inspection services for public school construction and who is hired and paid by the owner

( school district)

Multiple- prime contracting: the owner ( school district) holds separate contracts with

contractors of various disciplines ( such as general, mechanical, electrical). The owner, or

its construction manager, manages the overall schedule and budget during the entire

construction phase.

RFP: Request for Proposal; an invitation to bid, or a proposal inviting bids from possible

suppliers of a product or service

SB50: the 1998 state bond measure that provided matching funds to the Santa Cruz City

Schools District for modernization projects. District matching funds were generated from

Bond Measures E and H.

SCCS: Santa Cruz City Schools

SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006: This was the version

of the summary document detailing construction costs, change orders, and project

completion dates that the Grand Jury used for this report.

Stop Notice: a notice to withhold payment from a contractor and to set money aside to

satisfy a claim

Background

Bond Measures E and H

In April 1998, voters in the Santa Cruz City Schools ( SCCS) District passed two bond

measures worth a total of $ 86 million. The district spent over $ 300,000 for this special

election for Measure E and Measure H that was held just seven weeks prior to the

regularly scheduled June primary election. 1

Measure E, approved by seventy- nine percent ( 79%) of the voters, was for elementary

school improvements not to exceed $ 28 million, and Measure H, approved by seventy-four

percent ( 74%) of the voters, was for junior and senior high school improvements not

to exceed $ 58 million. The measures stated that the bond money would be used to

rehabilitate the schools, including replacing inadequate electrical, plumbing, heating, and

window systems; to comply with fire, earthquake, health, safety, and accessibility

standards; and to renovate, construct, and modernize classrooms, restrooms, and other

school facility improvements. Bond money would not be used for administrator salaries.

Expenditures would be monitored by a community bond oversight committee, with all

proceeds spent to benefit district schools. All elementary and secondary school sites in

the district were included in the bond measures.

Voter Information Pamphlet arguments in favor of Measures E and H stated that “ By law,

absolutely none of the funds raised by these ballot measures can be used for

1 County of Santa Cruz Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for Special School District

Election, Tuesday, April 14, 1998.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 3

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

administrative salaries, offices, or operating expenses. All of the funds raised by these

measures will stay in our local community and will be used to fix our schools.” 2

Bond Details

The E and H bonds were originally each sold in three series: A, B, and C. Series A was

sold in 1998, Series B in 2000, and Series C in 200l. According to the Voter Information

Pamphlet, “ Impartial Analysis by County Counsel,” the term for each bond sale was to be

25 years, which was the maximum term under California law when the measures were

passed. On April 13, 2005, the SCCS Board of Education passed resolutions authorizing

the refinancing of the general obligation Bond Measures E and H, Series A and B to take

advantage of decreased interest rates. This refinancing did not require voter approval.

As each series was sold, the money from the sale was deposited into the Santa Cruz

County Treasury to be withdrawn by the Santa Cruz City Schools District as needed for

the bond projects. As property taxes are collected, they are also deposited in the County

Treasury. These funds are withdrawn to make payments to the bond holders.

The Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office establishes the rate that each property owner in

the Santa Cruz City Schools District must pay toward the bonds. For the tax year 2005-

2006, the rate is: 3

• Series A and B, Elementary .035%

• Series A and B, High School .033%

• Series C, Elementary .007%

• Series C, High School .006%

• TOTAL .081%

At this rate, taxes resulting from Bond Measures E and H on property within the City of

Santa Cruz with an assessed value of $ 300,000 would be $ 243 for the 2005- 2006 tax

year. Property owners outside the city limits, but within the high school district, would

pay only the high school percentage, or .039%.

Additional Funding

The school renovation projects were not funded solely by the proceeds of bonds E and H

sales. Under the State Construction Program, the district applied in 1999 for SB50 ( State

Bond 50) funds for modernization that it began receiving in July 2000. These state funds

were earmarked for renovation of schools that met the age requirement for modernization

( twenty- five years or older). This was a cash- matching program, and E and H funds were

used for the match. The district received over $ 28 million from the state. Additions

including bond interest, developer fees, deferred maintenance funds, and donations

2 County of Santa Cruz Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for Special School District

Election, Tuesday, April 14, 1998.

3 Figures supplied by the Santa Cruz County Auditor/ Controller Office, June 2, 2006.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 4 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

brought the total revenue for bond projects to $ 128,683,715 as of April 30, 2006. Total

revenue for the bond projects is summarized as follows: 4

REVENUE SOURCE REVENUE AMOUNT

Bond Proceeds

Series A ( 6/ 98) $ 21,854,000

Series B ( 3/ 00) $ 46,300,077

BAN Funds ( Series C, 10/ 00) $ 15,990,000

Series C ( 10/ 01) $ 110,171

Subtotal Bond Proceeds $ 84,254,248

Other Revenue

Bond Interest $ 10,411,303

Bond Arbitrage Liability ($ 419,412)

BAN Interest $ 976,905

BAN Arbitrage Liability ($ 210,905)

Deferred Maintenance $ 974,499

Food Services $ 175,000

Capital Facilities Fund $ 2,597,047

State SB- 50 Rel. 1 $ 1,906,616

State SB- 50 Rel. 2 $ 26,514,241

SB- 50 Interest $ 620,037

Grants $ 345,024

Donations $ 231,801

Insurance Reimb ( Pool Deck) $ 122,748

Building Fund $ 19,814

General Fund $ 164,749

Subtotal Other Revenue $ 44,429,467

TOTAL REVENUE $ 128,683,715

Table 1. Revenue, SCCS Bond Projects Budget, July 1, 1998 to

April 30, 2006.

Setting Priorities/ Determining Projects

Prior to the bond campaign, a Facility Assessment Team comprised of construction

professionals and district staff evaluated each of the school sites, worked with site and

district staff in developing a needs assessment, prioritized each site’s needs, and

developed a cost estimate for needed and desired school construction projects. This

facilities audit, along with community input, was used by the district to determine the

amount of money that was requested in the bond election. Although approximately $ 130

million in needed and desired improvements were identified, a community survey

indicated voters would be willing to support bonds totaling $ 86 million. Projects were

4 Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 5

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

prioritized based on the $ 86 million figure, and renovations and repairs addressing code

requirements, health and safety concerns, and systems projects such as roofing, electrical,

and plumbing were given priority.

After the election, district staff, together with architects and construction managers,

developed a Master Schedule to accomplish the Facility Assessment projects. The

schedule defined the sequence for planning and construction of the projects at each

school site from June 1999 through December 2003. The schedule was discussed with all

site principals and the Bond Oversight Committee. Within the Master Schedule, each

school site was listed along with an anticipated planning and construction timeline. The

work at each school site was divided into the following tasks: pre- design, design, state

review, bidding, and construction.

In the “ Road to Renovation” pamphlet mailed out by SCCS in May 2000 to residents

within the SCCS boundaries, it was stated that the construction schedule called for all

projects to be completed by the end of the 2003- 2004 school year. Due to state funding

and additional revenues, in May 2003, with SCCS Board approval, site planning

committees began meeting to identify and prioritize additional modernization projects at

each school site. As of June 2006, there are still three projects to be bid, and eighteen

projects under construction. Projects may extend well beyond the end of 2006.

Project Management

Bond projects were originally overseen by the Director of Bond Projects, a district

administrative position, to provide general oversight and management of the program.

Two architect/ construction management teams ( DES- WLC Architects/ Turner

Construction Management for the elementary schools, and Beverly Prior/ Kitchell

Construction Management for the secondary schools) assisted. Projects were put out to

bid for multiple prime contractors, that is, a prime contractor for each trade. Due to the

difficulty in managing multiple and separate contracts, missed work, and instances of

poor work quality, the district discontinued its use of multiple prime contractors.

The bond projects are now managed by district staff and contracted firms. The

organizational components for project management include:

• the Assistant Superintendent, Business Services, providing district administration

oversight;

• general contractors bidding for projects;

• a construction management firm providing overall program management for

bond projects ( Strategic Construction Management);

• two architecture firms, one for the elementary and junior high schools ( DES

Architects), and one for the high schools ( Beverly Prior Architects), providing

design services and project administration;

• Inspectors of Record providing state- mandated site inspection services; and

• district employees ( 3.2 positions) paid by bond funds: a full- time district

Construction Project Coordinator, a full- time clerical support person; a full- time

accounting person; and support from the district purchasing manager for bidding

and contracting processes.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 6 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

Bidding

In California, public school construction is governed by the California Public Contract

Code. Construction contracts must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder as defined

in these code sections: 5

“ Responsible bidder,” as used in this part, means a bidder who has demonstrated

the attribute of trustworthiness, as well as quality, fitness, capacity, and

experience to satisfactorily perform the public works contract. ( Section 1103)

On the day named in the public notice, the department shall publicly open the

sealed bids and award the contracts to the lowest responsible bidders. ( Section

10180)

SCCS District officials stated that the lowest, responsive, responsible bidder is hired by

the district. A responsive bidder is one that has provided all necessary documents and

meets all specified qualifications in a timely manner.

When construction projects are put out to bid, a Request for Proposal ( RFP) is published

in the newspaper, and interested contractors are invited to submit bids by a specified date.

On that date, the bids are publicly opened, recorded, and awarded to the lowest,

responsive, responsible bidder.

Division of the State Architect Oversight

The Division of the State Architect ( DSA) reviews all public school construction

involving structural, fire/ life safety, and ADA compliance projects. Construction plans

and documents drafted by the district’s hired architects and engineers are submitted to the

DSA for plan checking to make sure they conform to the California Code of Regulations,

Title 24. After plans are checked and approved, they are stamped with an identification

stamp, and are ready for the construction phase. When a project is under construction, it

is supervised by DSA field operations. Field engineers go to the site to make sure plans

are being followed and work is up to code. The field engineer receives reports from state-certified

Inspectors of Record ( IOR) at least twice a month. The IORs make sure work is

performed according to the DSA- approved documents. Public school construction is not

inspected by city and county building inspectors, but by state- certified inspectors.

Once a project is completed, a Notice of Completion is recorded at the County

Recorder’s office and is publicized. The project closeout process then begins. The DSA

reviews all required project documentation to verify that all work was performed and

inspected in accordance with code requirements. If documentation indicates that

construction met these requirements, the DSA issues a Letter of Certification to the

school district. If documentation is incomplete, the DSA sends the Architect of Record a

letter, with a ninety- day deadline to submit all remaining documents. If these documents

are not submitted, the project is closed without DSA certification. The file can be

reopened when documentation is complete, but a fee of $ 150 for each project is assessed.

5 California Public Contract Code, http:// www. aroundthecapitol. com/ code/ contents. html? sec= pcc.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 7

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

Bond Oversight Committee

In Fall 1998, a committee consisting of volunteer community members was formed by

the district to provide oversight for the bond projects. The Bond Oversight Committee

( BOC) is an advisory body only and makes recommendations to the school board. Final

authority for all aspects of the bond measures resides with the SCCS Board of Trustees.

The BOC meets every other month and receives reports on financial and construction

status; reviews standard bid documents and change orders; reviews contracts for design,

construction management, construction contractors, and contract amendments; and has

been involved in the reallocation of dollars between school sites. Specified roles and

responsibilities include attending all committee meetings; becoming familiar with the

laws, regulations, and processes that the school district must satisfy in completing the

projects authorized by the bond; and working with all interested parties to facilitate

communication about the status of the bond projects. 6

According to district officials, by the end of Summer 2006, ninety- eight percent ( 98%) of

the bond funds will have been spent as projects are nearing completion. The BOC’s final

meeting is scheduled for November 2006. A subcommittee has been established to work

with school district staff and Strategic Construction Management to prepare a final report

on the bond projects for the board and community members, detailing how both time and

money were spent under Measures E and H.

Scope

This investigation was undertaken to review financial documentation for the Santa Cruz

City Schools Bond Measures E and H. The investigation included:

• reviewing SCCS Board of Education minutes, Bond Oversight Committee

minutes, site summaries, project completion documents, and financial documents

pertaining to Bond Measures E and H;

• reviewing web sites, newspaper articles;

• conducting interviews with district staff and volunteers; and

• visiting school sites to view bond project results.

As the investigation progressed, the bond details and issues of project management,

bidding, and oversight were also examined.

Sources

Interviewed:

Santa Cruz City Schools District personnel.

Bond Oversight Committee members.

Division of the State Architect personnel.

Santa Cruz County personnel.

6 Santa Cruz City Schools, “ Bond Oversight Committee Roles and Responsibilities,” revised April 17,

2002.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 8 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

Reviewed:

Memoranda/ Reports/ Minutes/ Agendas:

Advantages/ Disadvantages of Using Multiple Prime v. Single General Contractor,

agenda packet, Bond Oversight Committee meeting, January 27, 2000.

California Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect, Project

Inspector Qualification Record, DSA- 5, revised March 27, 2003.

Communications Matrix for Bond Projects Participants, November 29, 2001.

IOR Bi- Monthly Progress Reports, Santa Cruz High, May 2002.

Memo from Northcross, Hill and Ach, June 8, 2006.

Official Statements, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, General

Obligation Bonds, Election of 1998, Series A, B, and C.

Official Statements, Santa Cruz City High School District, General Obligation

Bonds, Election of 1998, Series A, B, and C.

Official Statement, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, 2005 General

Obligation Refunding Bonds.

Official Statement, Santa Cruz City High School District, 2005 General Obligation

Refunding Bonds.

Santa Cruz City Schools, Agreement for Consultant Services, Construction Program

Management Services, Strategic Construction Management, February 1, 2002.

Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary

Districts Minutes, May 12, 1999 to May 10, 2006. [ Please see Appendix for

specific dates.]

Santa Cruz City School Bond Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes, May 16,

1998 to May 18, 2006. [ Please see Appendix for specific dates.]

Santa Cruz City Schools “ Bond Oversight Committee Roles and Responsibilities,”

revised April 17, 2002.

Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006.

Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April

30, 2006.

Santa Cruz City Schools District Bond Projects Status Reports, November 17, 1999

to January 25, 2006. [ Please see Appendix for specific dates.]

Santa Cruz City Schools, Request for Proposals, Management Services for

Construction Projects, undated.

Soquel High School Bond II Modernization Project IIIA, Bid # 2004- 21, Opened

June 3, 2004.

Soquel High School Bond 2 Phase II Rebid, Bid # 2006- 09, Opened December 22,

2005.

Newspaper Articles/ Pamphlets:

Contra Costa Times, “ Schools’ refinancing questioned,” April 30, 2006.

County of Santa Cruz Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for Special

School District Election, Tuesday, April 14, 1998.

“ Road to Renovation: Keeping You Informed,” Santa Cruz City Schools, undated.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 9

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

Santa Cruz Sentinel:

“ Bond- funded school repairs set to start in Santa Cruz,” May 13, 1999.

“ Bonds making a difference,” March 22, 2001.

“ Branciforte remodeling project disappoints staff,” October 14, 2001.

“ Error could cost schools thousands,” April 8, 2005.

“ Firm will oversee school construction projects,” February 15, 2002.

“ Moving costs stir school- bond debate,” May 29, 2003.

“ Santa Cruz City Schools finds surplus in general fund,” April 20, 2006.

“ Students say last goodbye to Natural Bridges, Branciforte schools,” June 12,

2004.

Web sites:

Building Standards Commission, http:// www. bsc. ca. gov.

California Code of Regulations,

http:// www. bsc. ca. gov/ title_ 24/ documents/ part1/ 2001_ part1. pdf.

California Education Code, http:// caselaw. lp. findlaw. com/ cacodes/ edc/ 15200-

15205. html.

California State Constitution, http:// www. leginfo. ca. gov/ const. html.

California Public Contract Code,

http:// www. aroundthecapitol. com/ code/ contents. html? sec= pcc.

“ Choosing the Best Delivery Method for Your Facility Projects,”

http:// www. mbpce. com/ news_ pubs_ delivery. html.

Division of the State Architect, http:// www. dsa. dgs. ca. gov.

Division of the State Architect On- Line Project Tracking System,

http:// www. applications. dgs. ca. gov/ dsa/ etrackerweb/ DistrictProject. asp? client

id= 44- h2 and

http:// www. applications. dgs. ca. gov/ dsa/ etrackerweb/ DistrictProject. asp? client

id= 44- 42.

General Obligation Bonds, http:// www. calschools. com/ static/ GOBond. htm.

Santa Cruz City Schools, http:// www. sccs. santacruz. k12. ca. us.

Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects,

http:// www. sccs. santacruz. k12. ca. us/ bizservices/ BondProject/ bondproject. htm

( this web site is no longer accessible).

Santa Cruz County Office of Education,

http:// www. santacruz. k12. ca. us/ board/ index. html.

Santa Cruz Sentinel, http:// www. santacruzsentinel. com.

State Education Oversight Commissions,

http:// www. ecs. org/ clearinghouse/ 57/ 86/ 5786. htm.

Strategic Construction Management, http:// strategic-cm.

com/ main/ santacruzcityschools. htm.

TBW& B, Public Finance Strategies, LLC, http:// www. tbwb. com/ clients. htm.

2001 California Building Standards Administrative Code, California Code of

Regulations, Title 24, Part 1,

http:// www. bsc. ca. gov/ title_ 24/ documents/ Part1/ 2001_ part1. pdf.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 10 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

Visited:

Ten Santa Cruz City School sites.

Findings

Bonds E and H

1. The E and H bonds were originally each sold in three series: A, B, and C: 7

Bond Sold Date Bond Amount Bond Term Ends

Series A, Elementary July 1, 1998 $ 7,000,000.00 August 1, 2027

Series B, Elementary March 1, 2000 $ 15,500,000.00 August 1, 2029

Series C, Elementary October 2001 $ 5,598,115.65 February 1, 2026

TOTAL ELEM. $ 28,098,115.65

Series A, High School July 1, 1998 $ 15,000,000.00 August 1, 2027

Series B, High School March 1, 2000 $ 31,000,000.00 August 1, 2029

Series C, High School October 2001 $ 11,997,433.50 February 1, 2026

TOTAL HIGH SCH. $ 57,997,433.50

In April 2005, Series A and B Elementary and High School bonds were refinanced:

Refinance, Series A

and B, Elementary

April 2005

$ 22,785,000

August 1, 2029

Refinance, Series A

and B, High School

April 2005

$ 45,500,000

August 1, 2029

Table 2. Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Sales, Measures E and H.

2. Total Elementary bond sales, Series A, B, and C exceeded the $ 28 million dollar cap

established in Bond Measure E.

3. When asked about exceeding the $ 28 million cap on the Elementary bonds, district

administrative staff referred the Grand Jury’s questions to the district’s bond

financial advisor, Northcross, Hill and Ach. The Grand Jury was told,

“ Unintentionally, $ 98,115.65 was issued in bonds over the 28 million dollar amount

approved by the voters. The district has made provision to repay the $ 98,115.65 and

all interest that has accrued.” The amount of the interest earned is unknown to the

Grand Jury.

7 Official Statements, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of

1998, Series A, B, and C; Official Statements, Santa Cruz City High School District, General Obligation

Bonds, Election of 1998, Series A, B, C; Official Statement, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District,

2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds; Official Statement, Santa Cruz City High School District, 2005

General Obligation Refunding Bonds.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 11

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

4. The last of the original Elementary bonds was sold in 2001, but repayment of the

$ 98,115.65 overage has not yet been made as of June 10, 2006.

5. When Elementary and High School Bonds, Series A and B were refinanced in April

2005, the total amount of the refunding bonds was $ 4,280,000 higher than the

remaining principal of the original Series A and B bonds. The Elementary Series A

and B Bonds were refinanced for $ 22,785,000 ( the outstanding principal was

$ 21,030,000); the High School Series A and B Bonds were refinanced for

$ 45,500,000 ( the outstanding principal was $ 42,975,000). 8

6. SCCS District’s bond financial advisor stated that “ the amount of the refunding

bonds is determined by the amount needed to establish an escrow to pay off the old

bonds, which includes interest and principal due . . . and pay the costs of issuance.”

7. Elementary bonds, Series C and Elementary 2005 Refunding Bonds total

$ 28,383,115.65, again exceeding the $ 28 million cap established by the bond

measure.

8. The April 2005 refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds, Series A and

B is not detailed on the SCCS Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to

April 30, 2006.

9. According to the Official Statements for the bond sales, property owners residing in

the Santa Cruz City Schools District will be repaying bonds E and H until 2029.

10. The Voter Information Pamphlet for Bond Measures E and H contained an

“ impartial analysis by County Counsel” stating that “ under current California law,

the term of the bonds cannot exceed twenty- five years.” 9 This term is also stated in

the California Education Code, Section 15144: “ The number of years the whole or

any part of the bonds are to run shall not exceed 25 years, from the date of the bonds

or the date of any series thereof.” 10

11. On April 13, 2005, the SCCS Board of Education passed resolutions authorizing the

refinancing ( refunding) of the general obligation Bond Measures E and H, Series A

and B to take advantage of decreased interest rates.

12. SCCS District’s bond financial advisor stated that the refunding of the bonds will

result in lower debt service payments, with the majority of savings in 2006- 2010, and

that the refinancing will lower taxes.

13. For tax year 2004- 2005, property owners residing in the Santa Cruz City Schools

District within the City of Santa Cruz were paying property taxes at a rate of .068%

toward bonds E and H. In tax year 2005- 2006, the rate increased to .081%.

8 Official Statement, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding

Bonds; Official Statement, Santa Cruz City High School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding

Bonds.

9 County of Santa Cruz Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for Special School District

Election, Tuesday, April 14, 1998.

10 California Education Code, Section 15144, http:// caselaw. lp. findlaw. com/ cacodes/ edc. html.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 12 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

14. Interest earned on bond sale proceeds has been used for the bond projects and has not

been used to repay the bond. 11

15. As property tax is collected to repay bonds E and H, the money is deposited in the

pooled investment fund of the county until the district draws it out. These deposits

earn interest.

Budget Expense Summary

16. Following is a summary of the SCCS Bond Projects Budget expenses from July 1,

1998 to April 30, 2006: 12

ITEM EXPENSE PERCENTAGE

OF EXPENSES

Construction Contracts $ 82,431,328 74%

Architects/ Engineers $ 11,212,596 10%

Construction Management $ 6,928,864 6%

Miscellaneous Construction Costs $ 4,178,084 4%

Reserves $ 3,901,483 4%

Staff Salaries and Other Support $ 2,225,522 2%

TOTAL EXPENSES $ 110,877,877 100%

Table 3. Summary of SCCS Bond Projects Budget Expenses, July 1, 1998 to

April 30, 2006.

Project Management

17. In January 2001, the Bond Projects staff requested authority from the school board

and the BOC to use their discretion before bidding projects in the future, and to

decide whether to bid projects with one general contractor or use multiple- prime

contractors.

18. Results of the first four major bond projects undertaken at one high school, one

junior high school and two elementary were described as follows: “ All four projects

were completed late, two of the four projects are over budget, the quality of some of

the work was sub- standard on two projects, and sub- standard work was allowed to

stand when first done, assuming it would be rectified as part of the punch list at the

end of the projects, but after many spaces had been reoccupied. Some work that was

planned to be included in some projects was left out of the initial plans and specs and

had to be added with change orders, adding time and cost to the project.” 13

19. At the October 24, 2001, SCCS Board of Education meeting, district administrative

staff dissatisfaction with the ability of the construction managers to monitor and

11 Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 11, 1998 to April 30, 2006.

12 Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 11, 1998 to April 30, 2006.

13 Santa Cruz City Schools, Request for Proposals, Management Services for Construction Projects, 2001.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 13

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

control the work on multiple prime projects was reported. District staff

recommended:

• bidding future construction projects using general contractors

• terminating the two elementary and secondary Construction Managers’

contracts

• increasing Inspector of Record time on projects to better monitor quality of

work

• increasing architect involvement in construction administration

• reorganizing district support and oversight of projects

• pre- qualifying bidders for future projects

20. District administrative staff stated that using general contractors had the advantages

of less contract administration, total coverage of work, and direct lines of

accountability. Disadvantages were that the general contractor might not select the

lowest subcontractor bid and could charge up to a fifteen percent markup on

subcontractor change orders. 14 District administrative staff stated that using general

contractors could cost more, but there would be clear lines of responsibility and

“ headaches would be reduced.”

21. On November 15, 2001, district administrative staff reported to the BOC that the

SCCS Board had approved a plan to hire a consultant to provide general oversight

and management of the construction program. The board’s preference was to hire

professionals in the construction management field to manage future projects, instead

of having district employees in the project management role. The board stated that it

did not have confidence that district employees could provide management, in light

of the problems that had been reported by school staff at Branciforte Junior High on

that school’s projects. 15

22. Seven firms responded to the district’s Request for Proposal ( RFP) for a construction

program manager. Three finalists were interviewed, and Strategic Construction

Management was chosen by the SCCS Board as the Construction Program Manager

to be effective February 1, 2002. District administrative staff and volunteers stated

the board liked the fact that Strategic Construction Management was local and had

ties to the community.

23. The district has not been able to produce the fixed- price bids and requested

supporting documentation for this selection process. This documentation is public

record.

24. The Grand Jury could find no documentation that the bids for the Construction

Program Manager were opened publicly as required by the Public Contract Code. 16

14 “ Advantages/ Disadvantages of Using Multiple Prime v. Single General Contractor, agenda packet, Bond

Oversight Committee meeting, January 27, 2000.

15 Santa Cruz City School Bond Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes, November 15, 2001.

16 California Public Contract Code, Section 10180,

http:// www. aroundthecapitol. com/ code/ contents. html? sec= pcc

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 14 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

25. “ Previously, the district used its staff to oversee multiple contractors at individual

schools. Officials expect the new system, which includes hiring a general contractor

for each project, will simplify the process and attract more bids, particularly from

area contractors. The district will pay Strategic $ 1.2 million. District officials expect

to finish all projects by December 2004.” 17

26. Construction Management budgets were reduced by $ 2,128,663 due to termination

of the two previous Construction Management contracts. Architect Fee budgets were

then increased $ 1,288,160 for increased services for construction administration due

to reorganization of management for the projects. These adjustments, when

combined with the new Strategic Construction Management contract for $ 1.2

million, produced an immediate overall increase for the bond projects of over

$ 360,000.

27. Since February 1, 2002, there have been numerous contract extensions and additional

payments approved for Strategic Construction Management, summarized as follows:

Original

Contract18

Moving

Services19

Contract

Renewal20

Contract

Extension21

Moving

Contract22

Contract

Extension23

TOTAL

Term 2/ 2/ 02 –

2/ 28/ 04

8/ 23/ 02 –

2/ 28/ 04

3/ 1/ 04 –

8/ 31/ 05

10/ 1/ 05 –

6/ 30/ 06

5/ 05 –

9/ 05

7/ 1/ 06 –

12/ 31/ 06

Amount $ 1,205,104 $ 99,825 $ 958,058 $ 374,325 $ 27,254 $ 224,500 $ 2,889,066

Table 4. Approved Contracts for Strategic Construction Management Paid

by Bond Funds.

28. In addition to bond funds, payments totaling $ 68,273 to Strategic Construction

Management have been approved by the SCCS Board: $ 48,221 from the General

Fund to “ plan and coordinate moving of furniture, equipment and supplies ( March

24, 2004); and $ 20,052 from the Capital Facilities Fund to “ plan and coordinate the

relocation of 21 portable classrooms” ( April 21, 2004).

17 Santa Cruz Sentinel, “ Firm will oversee school construction projects,” February 15, 2002.

18 Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes,

February 27, 2002.

19 Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes,

August 14, 2002.

20 Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes,

December 10, 2003.

21 Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, June

8, 2005

22 Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, June

8, 2005.

23 Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, April

26, 2006.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 15

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

29. In the RFP for Management Services for Construction Projects that was part of the

Strategic Construction Management Agreement with the district, one requirement is

to “ plan and coordinate the moving of staff, furniture, material and equipment related

to the construction projects.” Strategic Construction Management submitted a fixed

fee proposal to secure this contract.

30. In March 2002, the board approved a district Construction Projects Coordinator

position to serve as a liaison between Strategic Construction Management and the

district sites. The position is funded through the elementary and secondary bonds.

The head of the district Maintenance Department was appointed to the position.

Bidding

31. The SCCS Board of Education approved a resolution to no longer require a public

re- bidding of work once change orders exceeded the cost of the original bid by over

ten percent ( 10%), as had been previously required. It was stated that the re- bid

process can cause a six- to eight- week delay, and since the district had a general

contractor in charge of bond- funded projects, the chances of exceeding a ten percent

overrun were considerably less.

32. The SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006, revealed that out

of sixty- nine projects, thirty- seven ( or 54%) exceeded a ten percent cost overrun due

to change orders.

33. In October 2005, the SCCS Board voted to become subject to the Uniform Public

Construction Cost Accounting Procedures and to provide for informal bidding

procedures under the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act Procedures.

This allowed projects from $ 35,000 to $ 125,000 to be bid using a pre- approved list

of satisfactory contractors, while projects over $ 125,000 were subject to formal

bidding procedures. The rationale was that this would allow more flexibility in the

execution of work; speed up bidding procedures; improve timeliness of project

completion; reduce paperwork and expenses related to advertising; and simplify

administration.

34. The SCCS District was advised by legal counsel to set a consistent policy for the

acceptance of bids. Subsequently, it was decided to award contracts based on the

lowest total bid on each project. Projects often contain several alternates, which may

or may not be actually included in the final project. The contract, however, is still

awarded on the total bid.

35. When projects contain alternates, contractors can bid low or even zero ( 0) on some

alternates, thereby lowering their overall total bid.

36. In March 2006, the district awarded a bond project contract to a bidder whose past

projects for the district included a project that had change orders totaling 34.1% of

the original contact amount, a Stop Notice, and had gone to court. That same bidder

had previously completed district bond projects with change orders of 32.3%, 36.9%,

and 118.8% of the original contract amounts.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 16 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

37. Contracts were not always awarded to the lowest bidder as evidenced by Bid # 2006-

09. The contract was awarded for $ 1,204,700 when the lowest bid was actually

$ 1,151,399.

Change Orders

38. The SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006, document does

not include all bond projects, notably those undertaken in 1998- 1999. Approximately

$ 4 million worth of projects are not detailed, nor are their change orders.

39. The SCCS, Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006, showed twenty

projects with change orders exceeding twenty percent ( 20%) of the original project

contract. These percentages range from 21.7% to 118.8%, resulting in additional

costs of $ 5,479,544 above the original contract amount of $ 17,779,162 for those

twenty projects. This reflected a 30.8% increase over the original contract amounts.

40. Sixty- nine completed or nearly- completed projects detailed on the SCCS, Bond

Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006, had change orders totaling

$ 9,621,580, or fourteen and one- half percent ( 14.5%) of their original contract total

of $ 66,457,279.

41. District officials stated that general contractors typically make a fifteen- percent

markup on change orders.

Division of the State Architect Oversight

42. According to the Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout,

dated May 10, 2006, sixty- four projects have had Notices of Completion filed. Of

those sixty- four projects, only one is listed in the “ DSA Closeout Complete” column,

and only two are listed in the “ Closeout Sent to DSA” column. The Architect of

Record is responsible for submitting the required closeout documents for final

certification. 24

43. The Grand Jury found at least one instance of a project being started without prior

DSA notification by the IOR ( DSA Project Code 01- 106000). This appears to be a

violation of the Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, Section 4- 331.

44. Inspector of Record assignment date records obtained from the SCCS District and

the DSA do not match.

45. “ The school board must provide for and require competent, adequate and continuous

inspection by an inspector . . .” and; “ The project inspector . . . must be approved by

the DSA for each individual project.” 25

24 2001 California Building Standards Administrative Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24,

Part 1, Sections 4- 339 and 4- 341, http:// www. bsc. ca. gov/ title_ 24/ documents/ Part1/ 2001_ part1. pdf.

25 2001 California Building Standards Administrative Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 124,

Part 1, Section 4- 333( b).

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 17

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

46. In reviewing the IOR field reports for Santa Cruz High Modernization, project

number 01- 103363, there is a gap of eighteen days with no IOR reports or notations.

One inspector had been terminated on May 2, 2002, and the next IOR report was

dated May 20, 2002.

47. DSA Field Notes from the supervising field engineer from July 10, 2002, stated the

first item requiring resolution on project 01- 103363 was that the IOR had been

replaced by two subsequent IORs, the last of which had not submitted DSA Form- 5.

The DSA Form- 5, which must be signed by the district, architect, and engineer, must

be filed ten days prior to an IOR beginning a project. 26

School Closures/ Leasing

48. In January 2001, the BOC questioned the prudence of using bond funds to modernize

schools that might be closed in the future due to declining enrollment.

49. In June 2004, Natural Bridges and Branciforte Elementary schools closed.

Branciforte became a campus for small district alternative schools. Natural Bridges

is leased by Pacific Collegiate, a charter school that is funded by the state. This site

is not being used as part of Santa Cruz City Schools. Proposition 39 obligates the

district to provide a certain amount of space rent free since sixty percent of the

students come from within SCCS boundaries. Pacific Collegiate leases space for the

forty percent of the students from outside the district. The district also leases space to

another school, Carden El Encanto, at the former Loma Prieta High School site.

Lease funds go into the general fund. Following is a summary of the current and

projected lease income for these two sites: 27

LEASE REVENUES

04- 05 05- 06 06- 07 07- 08 08- 09

Natural Bridges $ 68,000 $ 83,232 $ 84,897 $ 86,595 $ 88,326

Loma Prieta $ 140,000 $ 165,000 $ 200,000 $ 228,400 $ 275,500

$ 208,000 $ 248,232 $ 284,897 $ 314,995 $ 363,826

Table 5. Santa Cruz City Schools Lease Revenues, 2004- 2009.

50. In August 2004, a citizen who attended two BOC meetings expressed concern about

bond funds that had been used on schools that were later closed. The citizen felt that

the lease money from those schools should be used to reduce the bond debt.

51. District administrative staff reported to the BOC committee that legal counsel said it

was not illegal to lease out the renovated schools and not use the revenues to defray

26 California Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect, Project Inspector

Qualification Record, DSA- 5, revised, March 27, 2003.

27 Agenda Packet, Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Oversight Committee Meeting, November 18, 2004.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 18 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

the debt. The BOC approved a motion to not recommend using lease revenues to

retire bond debt.

District Office Relocation/ Renovation

52. Even after Natural Bridges and Branciforte elementary schools had been closed, and

the four alternative schools on three sites were moved to the former Branciforte

Elementary campus, the district still needed to reduce overhead and save operating

expenses due to declining enrollment. The district offices on Mission Street were

sold, and ten classrooms at Soquel High School were chosen to serve as

administrative offices ( Soquel High School’s enrollment dropped from 1693 students

in 1998 to 1234 students in 2005- 06). The Adult Education Office, the Purchasing

Department, and District Warehouse were moved to Palm Street. The Workability

Program and Food Services Office were moved to DeLaveaga Elementary School.

53. Classrooms identified to house the district offices at Soquel High had already been

remodeled using bond funds. At least an additional $ 460,537 in bond money was

spent for the district office remodel.

54. At its April 9, 2003 meeting, the SCCS Board approved the use of up to $ 1 million in

bond funds for district office relocation and improvements. In its advisory capacity,

the BOC did not recommend this action.

55. To date, at least $ 1,285,486 of bond project money has been spent on district office

and adult education relocation. This total includes $ 274,424 for change orders, or

twenty- seven ( 27%) of the original contract amount of $ 1,011,062.

56. A BOC member called the use of bond money for offices “ not ethical,” and stated

that the district could use anticipated redevelopment revenue to pay for the

classroom conversions and other relocation projects. “ There was a promise ( the bond

money) would never be used for administrative costs. It was to improve the student

environment, not the district office environment.” 28

Oversight/ Public Communication

57. The BOC has been meeting bi- monthly since 1998. These meetings are open to the

public. Minutes and any reports released are public information. Meetings are held at

Soquel High School, Room 312. Oversight committee members stated that meeting

notices are posted at school sites and the district office.

58. In 1998, a bond web page was developed with links to each school site providing

regular updates on bond- related issues.

59. In June 1999, the communications sub- committee of the BOC worked on placing

bond- related information on the SCCS web page. Signs relating to bond projects

were designed for placement at the school sites.

28 Santa Cruz Sentinel, “ Moving costs stir school- bond debate,” May 29, 2003.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 19

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

60. On August 26, 1999, the BOC stated that the Board of Education, Bond Oversight

Committee, and district administration should work jointly to create a public

relations program and method of presentation for each school site, the press, and the

public in general.

61. District staff and BOC members were interviewed for “ Community Express,” a

Community Television of Santa Cruz show. The show aired four times in Fall 1999

and outlined the school bond issues and future project plans.

62. A brochure “ The Road to Renovation” detailed the status of Measure E and H

projects and was distributed to parents from the school sites and mailed to

households within the district in May 2000. This brochure indicated there would be

ongoing communication to keep the public aware of progress and improvements.

63. In July 2000, a Board of Education member noted that the district’s web site was in

need of updating.

64. The Grand Jury observed that as late as October 17, 2005, there was a “ Bond

Projects” section on the Santa Cruz City Schools web site. Information was out of

date; the last update had been posted in 2001. By February of 2006, that section of

the web site was no longer accessible, and posts “ Forbidden: You don’t have

permission to access … ( this site) on this server.”

65. When asked about the inaccessibility of the web site, district staff responded that the

webmaster worked one half- day per week and that there were no resources in the

district to put more effort into the web site.

66. Strategic Construction Management publishes SCCS site construction newsletters on

its web site. Newsletters for completed bond projects include construction budget

summaries, schedules, and architect, inspector, and contractor information. Web site

summaries of current projects have none of this information. 29

67. The construction budget summaries for “ Completed Projects” on the Strategic

Construction Management web site do not match the figures printed on the Santa

Cruz City Schools Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May10, 2006. The

Strategic Construction Management web site is the only one displaying information

on the SCCS bond construction projects.

68. According to district administrative staff, by the end of summer 2006, ninety- eight

percent ( 98%) of bond funds will be spent. The BOC’s final meeting is scheduled for

November 2006. If there is any money left over, district staff will oversee

expenditures. Construction projects could extend into Spring 2007.

69. Strategic Construction Management will be paid $ 34,500 to produce a Bond Projects

Report. This fee is included in their July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 contract

extension.

29 Strategic Construction Management, http:// strategic- cm. com/ main/ santacruzcityschools. htm.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 20 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

70. At its May 18, 2006 meeting, the BOC reviewed options for its final committee

report which may be in the form of newspaper ads or inserts, postcards, a newsletter,

a twenty- four page report, or a video.

Conclusions

Bonds E and H

1. Measure E, Series A, B, and C bond sales exceeded the voter- approved amount of

$ 28 million by $ 98,115.65. The $ 28 million cap was exceeded a second time when

the Measure E, Series A and B bonds were refinanced, this time by $ 383,115.65.

2. A savings of over $ 3 million in interest is projected due to the refinancing of the

Elementary and High School Bonds, Series A and B that were sold for $ 4,280,000

million more than the principal remaining. Although interest was decreased, the total

debt was increased. The purpose of the refinancing appears to be to extract more

funds and not to lower property taxes.

3. The 2005 refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds is not shown on the

SCCS Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006. Voters are

entitled to full disclosure regarding all bond details.

4. Contrary to the language of the Voter Information Pamphlet, the bond terms of both

the Elementary and High School bonds are greater than twenty- five years.

5. Property owners in the Santa Cruz City Schools District are paying a higher

percentage of their property taxes to repay bonds E and H in the 2005- 2006 tax year

than they paid in the 2004- 2005 tax year. To date, the decreased bond interest rates

have not reduced property taxes.

6. Over the next twenty- three years, property tax deposits will earn interest that could be

used to reduce bond debt.

7. The SCCS District has exceeded its fiscal authority granted in Measures E and H by

selling bonds for more than the voter- approved limit. By so doing, it could make it

more difficult for voters to approve future bond projects.

Project Management

8. As of April 30, 2006, expenses for architects/ engineers, and construction

management total sixteen percent ( 16%) of the total bond project expenditures, or

over $ 18 million.

9. The district did not have personnel on staff with adequate construction knowledge to

manage large construction projects.

10. The district could not find an efficient and cost- effective method of construction

program management. There were many layers of construction supervision and

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 21

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

coordination paid for with bond dollars: general contractors, architects, Strategic

Construction Management, and the district’s Construction Program Coordinator.

11. Originally, the Strategic Construction Management contract was for $ 1.2 million and

all projects were to be completed by December 2004. By the end of 2006, payments

to Strategic Construction Management will reach nearly $ 3 million, and projects are

still continuing.

12. Additional payments were made to Strategic Construction Management for moving

services that were part of their original contract with SCCS for which a fixed- price

bid had been submitted.

13. Total bond project construction management fees from 1998 to present appear

excessive, and will top $ 7 million before the end of 2006.

14. The bidding process for the Construction Program Manager was not conducted

according to Public Contract Code Procedures. Bid documentation is not available

from the district to determine whether the lowest bidder was accepted; and

documentation that the bids were opened in public as mandated by the Public

Contract Code has not been made available by the district.

Bidding

15. When the board voted to no longer require re- bidding projects that surpassed the ten

percent change order threshold, it removed the cap on change orders.

16. A contractor should not have been considered “ responsible” if that contractor’s

previous jobs had excessive change orders and if court action was necessary.

17. When projects were bid with alternates, this allowed contractors to manipulate the

system by giving a low bid or zero on alternates, thereby allowing a contractor to

submit the lowest bid. The bid would not necessarily be awarded to a responsible

bidder.

Change Orders

18. The SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006 is incomplete;

therefore, a true assessment of costs and overruns cannot easily be made.

19. The amount of change orders appears excessive. This could be due, in part, to the

removal of the ten percent ( 10%) cap requiring project re- bidding.

20. There was no financial incentive for contractors and architects to keep change orders

to a minimum.

Division of the State Architect Oversight

21. The Architects of Record have not fulfilled their responsibilities to secure project

closeout and certification by the DSA.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 22 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

22. District administrative staff has not seen the projects through to closeout by insisting

that the Architects of Record submit all closeout documentation.

23. The district, architect, and engineer failed to file DSA Form- 5 before IORs started

project 01- 103363 as required by the California Code of Regulations.

24. IOR documentation for project 01- 103363 is incomplete and shows a gap of eighteen

days with no IOR site notations or reports. It is a violation of the California Code of

Regulations for a project to proceed without an IOR.

25. Since district and DSA documentation of IOR assignments and dates do not match,

the Grand Jury was unable to determine whether projects progressed without an

assigned IOR, or without a DSA- approved IOR.

School Closures/ Leasing

26. Although bond funds were used to renovate the Natural Bridges and Loma Prieta

sites, lease revenues have not been used to repay bond debt.

District Office Relocation/ Renovation

27. Despite the fact that the Voter Information Pamphlet arguments in favor of the bond

measures clearly stated that bond funds were not to be used for administrative offices,

the SCCS Board used bond funds for this purpose.

28. The SCCS Board ignored BOC recommendations not to use bond funds for district

office renovations and relocation.

29. Lack of planning resulted in wasted money at Soquel High when ten classrooms that

had already undergone renovation and modernization were remodeled for district

offices.

30. The SCCS District spent more than $ 1.2 million on district office renovations and

relocations. The district inappropriately approved $ 1 million for this purpose; no bond

money should have been used.

Oversight/ Public Communication

31. The BOC is scheduled to disband in November 2006. Projects may continue until at

least Spring 2007, and there will be no BOC oversight. Bonds were passed under the

assumption that an oversight committee would be in place for the duration of the

projects.

32. The district has not maintained the bond project information on its web site. This

could have been a valuable means of providing ongoing, up- to- date public

information on the bond projects.

33. Over the last eight years, there has been no ongoing form of public communication

with district residents regarding the bond projects. Efforts made, such as starting a

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 23

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

web page, being interviewed for Santa Cruz Community Television, and producing a

brochure, all took place between 1998- 2000.

34. As of this late date, the BOC has not yet determined the format and scope of its final

report. The Grand Jury questions whether this will give the BOC time to prepare a

comprehensive report.

35. Paying Strategic Construction Management $ 34,500 to help prepare a final report

detailing the bond projects could result in a loss of objectivity and detail in evaluating

the projects’ successes and failures.

Recommendations

1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Auditor initiate an outside,

independent audit to scrutinize the bond sales and refinancing, and expenditure of

bond funds. If there was surplus cash gained from the refinancing, it should be

accounted for and used to reduce the bond debt.

2. An outside, independent performance audit should be conducted to analyze, assess,

and report on the Santa Cruz City Schools District’s operational and construction

management policies, procedures, and practices regarding Bond Measures E and H.

Investigation as to whether all California Code of Regulations, Title 24 standards

were followed should be included.

3. The SCCS District should insist that the architects submit all documents related to

completed bond projects under DSA supervision so the projects can be certified and

closed out. Architect fees should be withheld until DSA certification is complete.

4. For future major construction projects, the SCCS District should consider hiring an

experienced, qualified construction project manager or team as a limited- term district

employee( s). This would cost less than hiring a construction management firm.

5. The SCCS District should replace the funds used for District Office relocation and

renovation to reduce bond debt.

6. The SCCS District should use lease revenues and interest on future property tax

collections to reduce the bond debt.

7. The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects budget document that

includes bond refinancing details.

8. The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects closeout document

detailing all bond construction projects.

9. Future construction projects should be awarded to the contractor submitting the

lowest base bid. Alternates should be bid separately.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 24 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

10. For future construction projects, the contractors hired should adhere to the ten- percent

cap on change orders previously in effect.

11. The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond

projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and

completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and

suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects.

12. The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated

frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web

site.

13. The BOC should continue to operate until all bond projects are completed.

14. District support staff is to be commended for its helpfulness, promptness, and

courtesy when providing requested documentation.

Responses Required

Entity Findings Recommendations Respond

Within

Santa Cruz City

Schools Board of

Trustees

2- 12, 14, 15,

19, 20, 23, 24,

27- 29, 31, 32,

34- 44, 46, 47,

51, 53- 56, 64-

70

1- 13

90 Days

( October 1, 2006)

Santa Cruz County

Auditor/ Controller

1- 15

1

60 Days

( September 1, 2006)

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 25

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

Appendix A – Source Details

Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts

Minutes:

May 12, 1999.

May 26, 1999.

June 9, 1999.

June 28, 1999.

July 14, 1999.

August 11, 1999.

August 18, 1999.

August 25, 1999.

September 8, 1999.

September 22, 1999.

October 13, 1999.

October 27, 1999.

November 17, 1999.

December 8, 1999.

January 12, 2000.

January 26, 2000.

February 9, 2000.

February 23, 2000.

March 15, 2000.

March 29, 2000.

April 13, 2000.

April 26, 2000.

May 10, 2000.

May 24, 2000.

June 7, 2000.

June 28, 2000.

July 12, 2000.

August 3, 2000.

August 16, 2000.

September 6, 2000.

September 20, 2000.

October 11, 2000.

October 25, 2000.

November 8, 2000.

November 29, 2000.

December 13, 2000.

January 17, 2001.

January 31, 2001.

February 6, 2001.

February 14, 2001.

February 28, 2001.

March 14, 2001.

March 28, 2001.

April 25, 2001.

May 9, 2001.

May 23, 2001.

June 6, 2001.

June 27, 2001.

July 11, 2001.

August 8, 2001.

August 22, 2001.

September 12, 2001.

September 26, 2001.

October 24, 2001.

November 7, 2001.

November 28, 2001.

December 5, 2001.

December 19, 2001.

January 16, 2002.

January 23, 2002.

January 30, 2002.

February 13, 2002.

February 20, 2002.

March 13, 2002.

March 27, 2002.

April 17, 2002.

May 8, 2002.

May 22, 2002.

June 6, 2002.

July 9, 2002.

August 14, 2002.

August 28, 2002.

September 11, 2002.

September 25, 2002.

October 2, 2002.

October 9, 2002.

October 23, 2002.

November 6, 2002.

November 13, 2002.

November 20, 2002.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 26 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

December 11, 2002.

January 15, 2003.

January 29, 2003.

February 11, 2003.

February 12, 2003.

February 26, 2003.

March 5, 2003.

March 12, 2003.

March 26, 2003.

April 9, 2003.

April 30, 2003.

May 9, 2003.

May 14, 2003.

June 25, 2003.

July 23, 2003.

August 6, 2003.

August 27, 2003.

September 10, 2003.

September 24, 2003.

October 8, 2003.

October 22, 2003.

November 5, 2003.

November 10, 2003.

December 10, 2003.

January 14, 2004.

January 28, 2004.

February 11, 2004.

February 25, 2004.

March 10, 2004.

March 24, 2004.

April 21, 2004.

May 5, 2004.

May 12, 2004.

May 26, 2004.

June 9, 2004.

June 16, 2004.

June 29, 2004.

August 11, 2004.

August 21, 2004.

September 8, 2004.

September 22, 2004.

October 13, 2004.

October 27, 2004.

November 10, 2004.

December 15, 2004.

January 12, 2005.

February 9, 2005.

February 23, 2005.

March 9, 2005.

April 13, 2005.

April 20, 2005.

April 27, 2005.

May 25, 2005.

June 8, 2005.

June 20, 2005.

July 27, 2005.

August 10, 2005.

August 24, 2005.

September 14, 2005.

September 28, 2005.

October 10, 2005.

October 26, 2005.

November 21, 2005.

December 14, 2005.

January 9, 2006.

January 25, 2006.

February 8, 2006.

February 22, 2006.

March 8, 2006.

March 22, 2006.

April 19, 2006.

April 26, 2006.

May 10, 2006.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up: Page 1 - 27

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes:

May 16, 1998.

June 25, 1998.

July 20, 1998.

September 30, 1998.

December 10, 1998.

January 21, 1999.

March 4, 1999.

April 22, 1999.

June 24, 1999.

August 26, 1999 ( agenda packet).

September 30, 1999.

October 28, 1999.

January 27, 2000 ( agenda packet).

March 30, 2000.

May 18, 2000.

May 18, 2000 ( revised).

June 22, 2000.

June 22, 2000 ( revised).

July 20, 2000.

July 20, 2000 ( revised).

September 21, 2000.

October 19, 2000.

November 16, 2000.

January 18, 2001.

March 22, 2001.

May 17, 2001.

July 19, 2001.

September 20, 2001.

October 11, 2001.

October 23, 2001.

November 15, 2001.

November 29, 2001.

December 5, 2001.

January 17, 2002.

March 21, 2002.

May 16, 2002.

July 11, 2002.

September 12, 2002.

September 19, 2002.

October 2, 2002.

November 21, 2002.

January 23, 2003.

March 20, 2003.

May 22, 2003.

June 12, 2003.

July 10, 2003.

September 18, 2003.

November 13, 2003.

November 20, 2003.

January 22, 2004.

March 19, 2004.

May 20, 2004.

August 5, 2004 ( agenda packet).

September 16, 2004.

November 4, 2004.

November 18, 2004 ( agenda packet).

January 20, 2005.

March 15, 2005.

April 7, 2005.

May 19, 2005.

July 21, 2005.

September 22, 2005.

November 17, 2005 ( agenda packet).

January 19, 2006 ( agenda packet).

March 16, 2006 ( agenda packet).

May 18, 2006 ( agenda packet).

Santa Cruz City School District Bond Projects Status Reports:

November 17, 1999.

February 9, 2000.

April 13, 2000.

May 24, 2000.

August 2, 2000.

September 6, 2000.

October 11, 2000.

March 28, 2001.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 28 The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:

Bond Measures E and H,

Santa Cruz City Schools

April 25, 2001.

August 8, 2001.

October 10, 2001.

October 24, 2001.

November 7, 2001.

November 28, 2001.

March 27, 2002.

May 22, 2002.

August 14, 2002.

September 25, 2002.

December 11, 2002.

February 12, 2003.

March 26, 2003.

May 28, 2003.

August 6, 2003.

September 24, 2003.

December 10, 2003.

February 11, 2004.

March 24, 2004.

June 16, 2004.

September 22, 2004.

January 26, 2005.

April 13, 2005.

May 25, 2005.

July 27, 2005.

September 28, 2005.

January 25, 2006.

Santa Cruz County

Grand Jury

Final Report:

Section 2

Cities and County Committee Report

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Watsonville Municipal Airport: Page 2 - 1

Headed for a Crash?

Watsonville Municipal Airport:

Headed for a Crash?

Synopsis

Watsonville Municipal Airport is a valuable asset to the City of Watsonville and to the

entire County of Santa Cruz. While land- use planning around most airports is

monitored by regional commissions specializing in airport issues, a unique loophole in

California State law permits the Watsonville City Council to serve in this capacity for

the airport. The airport’s existence is now threatened because the city is meeting its

mandated housing goals by planning housing developments in airport safety zones,

which could lead to increased noise complaints and untold liability in the event of an

accident.

The airport is economically valuable to the city, providing steady employment,

business opportunities, a substantial tax base, and drawing business and recreational

visitors. Strategically, the airport is a key asset in low frequency but high impact

disaster relief efforts, as was demonstrated following the Loma Prieta earthquake.

Before any irrevocable decisions are made, the benefits of the airport to the entire

region must be carefully evaluated through the formation of an independent Airport

Land Use Commission. Such a commission will provide an opportunity for community

input and to make impartial land use decisions more frequently to protect this critical

regional resource.

Definitions

ALUC: Airport Land Use Commission

ALUP Handbook: State of California Department of Transportation, Division of

Aeronautics, Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, 2002

AMBAG: Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments; a forum for study of

regional problems of the counties and cities in Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz

APV: Action Pajaro Valley; a consensus- based, nonprofit planning organization based

in Watsonville

Blast pad: a section of asphalt placed at the end of a runway to prevent erosion from

the blast of jet engines or large twin- engine aircraft as they are preparing for takeoff

CalTrans: in this document exclusively refers to State of California Department of

Transportation, Division of Aeronautics

City Council Resolution 00- 00: the first two or three digits represent the resolution

number and the second two represent the calendar year, thus - 00 is 2000, - 99 is 1999.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 2 Watsonville Municipal Airport:

Headed for a Crash?

Crosswind runway: a second airport runway at an angle to the first runway. This

permits aircraft activity when the wind is blowing across the first runway, rather than

parallel to it. At Watsonville Airport, this is Runway 8- 26.

Direct economic impact: spending in the local area for goods and services by airport

tenants

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration

Indirect economic impact: the perception that the business community has on the

airport’s impact on local business operations

Induced economic impact: the multiplier effect that results from the re- spending of

the direct impact

LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission, governmental entity created by State

law in 1963 to regulate the boundaries of cities and special districts within a county

Low activity runway: a runway with less than 2,000 takeoffs and landings a year. The

ALUP Handbook allows elimination of the outermost Safety Zone 6 ( Traffic Pattern

Zone) for a low activity runway. 1

Measure U: Urban Limit Line and Timing Initiative, City Council of Watsonville,

Resolution, 199- 02, presented to the voters in June 2002

OES: Office of Emergency Services

PUC: Public Utilities Commission

Runway 26: southeast end of Runway 8- 26

Runway 8: northwest end of Runway 8- 26

1 Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Watsonville Municipal Airport: Page 2 - 3

Headed for a Crash?

Figure 1: Runway Designators Each of the two paths of concrete

at Watsonville Airport contains two runways, depending upon the

direction the aircraft is heading when using the runway. The

runway designators ( e. g. “ 8”) refer to the compass direction divided

by 10. Thus, an airplane landing on Runway 8 will approach from

the west ( left side of figure) landing near the “ 8” with a compass

heading of ( approximately) 80 degrees. Runway 8- 26 refers to the

entire path of concrete, consisting of Runway 8 and Runway 26.

Safety zones: land near the airport where construction of buildings is limited. These

restrictions are mandated by the ALUP Handbook. [ See Figure 2.]

• Safety Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone

• Safety Zone 2: Inner Approach/ Departure Zone

• Safety Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone

• Safety Zone 4: Outer Approach/ Departure Zone

• Safety Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone

Tie- down: parking space for an airplane on the tarmac with facility to allow the

airplane to be literally tied down in place

Urban Limit Line: the boundary for city- provided services

WatsonvilleVISTA 2030: the City of Watsonville’s general plan for housing

development extending to the year 2030. This updated the “ Watsonville 2005 General

Plan.”

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 4 Watsonville Municipal Airport:

Headed for a Crash?

Figure 2: Watsonville Municipal Airport Safety Zones and Buena Vista Areas I, II, and

III, showing how Runway 8 Safety Zones overlap Buena Vista Area I and how Zone 4

intrudes into Buena Vista Area II. ( Special thanks to California Department of

Transportation, Division of Aeronautics for providing this map.)

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Watsonville Municipal Airport: Page 2 - 5

Headed for a Crash?

Background

The Watsonville Municipal Airport was constructed by the Navy during World War II

on land purchased by, and incorporated into, the City of Watsonville. In 1947 the

airport was transferred back to the city for $ 1 provided the land would be used as an

airport in perpetuity. Initial construction consisted of two runways, both built to

military specifications that make them suitable for use by heavy aircraft such as C- 130s

and business jets. Two runways are needed to accommodate weather variations. The

primary runway, Runway 2- 20, is the longest and can be used ninety- four percent of the

time. The shorter runway, Runway 8- 26, can be used ninety- eight percent of the time

and is necessary not only for wind variations, but particularly in summer fog

conditions.

Economic factors that make the airport valuable include revenue from taxes,

businesses, fuel sales, tie- down and hangar rentals, and direct fiscal impact from

itinerant business and pleasure aircraft. Two studies were conducted on the economic

impact of the airport to the City of Watsonville and the region. The first was conducted

by citizens appointed by the City of Watsonville in 1991.2 This study found the

Watsonville Airport had an estimated economic impact of more than $ 19 million

annually to the region. It also presented employment figures of sixty- one jobs at the

airport and 188 induced and indirect jobs, with taxes of $ 1.4 million, of which $ 1

million was retained locally. The second study was conducted by AMBAG in 2003 and

estimated that $ 35 million annually accrued to the region as both direct and induced

income. 3 The AMBAG study estimated that the indirect economic impact of the airport

on the region could be as high as $ 600 million a year, with 291 direct jobs, 329 induced

jobs, and 1,030 indirect jobs.

The Watsonville Airport played a vital role in the disaster relief efforts following the

Loma Prieta earthquake. Both four- lane roads into the county were closed due to

earthquake damage, although Highway 17 opened a few days later to limited traffic

while major repairs were carried out. During that time, the airport was the county’s

major conduit for incoming supplies. At present, many state, federal, and local

government entities have aircraft based at the airport for local emergency response. 4

Housing development is a priority for the City of Watsonville: 2,283 units were

mandated by AMBAG in its 2002 report on regional housing needs. 5 State law requires

that adequate sites be identified during the 2002- 2007 planning period. These goals

necessitate increasing the Urban Limit Line for the city, which is where conflicting

economic interests come into play. There is strong public support for preserving

agricultural land to the east and west without encroachment by housing. The

2Watsonville Airport, Airport Economic Impact Study, p. 3, 1991.

3AMBAG, Airport Economic Impact Study for Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz Counties, p. 4,

August 13, 2003.

4Watsonville Airport: Airport Economic Impact Study, June 9, 1991.

5City of Watsonville, Housing Element, chart 4, p. 4- 1.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 6 Watsonville Municipal Airport:

Headed for a Crash?

compromise negotiated by Action Pajaro Valley includes environmentally sensitive

lands, open space, and relatively undeveloped land around the north side of the airport,

some of which is currently under agricultural use.

The City of Watsonville addressed the land acquisition issue by amending the

“ Watsonville 2005General Plan” with Watsonville City Council Resolution 199- 02.

This resolution was presented to, and passed by, Watsonville City voters as Measure U

in 2002. The measure outlined several areas for increasing the Urban Limit Line,

including the Buena Vista areas ( on the map referred to as phases – see Figure 2)

designated as I, II, and III, with Area I to be developed first. This area overlaps parts of

the safety zones to the north of Runway 8- 26.

Scope

This investigation originated as a survey of California airport runways that had been

closed due to safety issues and noise complaints after housing densities had increased

nearby.

This report examines Watsonville Municipal Airport’s current importance to the entire

county as well as to the City of Watsonville. Federal and state regulations governing

airports were examined, particularly as they pertain to safety requirements around an

airport. City of Watsonville housing plans for areas contiguous to the airport were also

studied.

Sources [ see Appendix]

Findings

1. AMBAG has declared that the City of Watsonville must plan for 2,283 new housing

units in the 2000- 2007 period. 6

2. City Council Resolution 199- 02 was the text for Measure U and amended 1994’ s

“ Watsonville 2005 General Plan” ( now replaced by WatsonvilleVISTA 2030) by

extending the city boundaries to include Buena Vista areas I, II, and III as proposed

locations for meeting mandated housing goals.

3. Santa Cruz County’s Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) must

approve any city boundary extensions.

4. Measure U as presented in the pre- election voter information pamphlet reduced the

text of Resolution 199- 02 from eighteen ( 18) pages to a single sentence with a

generic analysis by the City Attorney regarding Urban Limit Lines:

“ Shall the City of Watsonville amend the Watsonville 2005 General Plan

thereby imposing certain restrictions on growth, as specified, and restricting

6City of Watsonville Housing Element, chart 4, p. 4- 1.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Watsonville Municipal Airport: Page 2 - 7

Headed for a Crash?

later amendments all as provided in the Watsonville Urban Limit Line and

Development Timing Initiative?”

A copy of the full text of Resolution 199- 02 was only available upon request. 7

5. A group called the Friends of Buena Vista presented their opposition to Measure U

on the voter’s information pamphlet, but because the area is currently outside the

city limits, none of the residents of the areas to be annexed were able to vote on the

measure.

6. The Friends of Buena Vista and other entities hired an attorney in 2005 to challenge

the City of Watsonville’s draft environmental impact document regarding

construction in the Buena Vista areas.

7. Neither City Council Resolution 199- 02, nor Measure U, mentioned any possible

impact on the airport nor possible conflicts between housing and the airport, such as

safety and noise pollution.

8. The Watsonville Air Show is a significant regional event, generating annual

revenue between $ 500,000 and $ 3 million. 8

9. Studies show the overall annual economic impact of the airport to the region is a

minimum of $ 45 million ( in 2006 dollars) and could range as high as $ 600 million

when indirect economic impacts are included. 9

10. Businesses and independent owners from all over the county base their aircraft at

the airport. 10

11. Itinerant aircraft use the airport, bringing business and recreational visitors who add

approximately $ 9 million a year to the area. 11

12. Watsonville Airport is used in the day- to- day operations of local government

entities including the California Highway Patrol, Civil Air Patrol, Drug

Enforcement Agency, FEMA, the FBI, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Services, and the Department of Fish and Game.

13. The Watsonville City Council has discussed the possibility of shortening Runway

8- 26. This would limit the number of aircraft that could land there, particularly in

restrictive weather conditions. The Watsonville City Council rejected this option.

14. One of the guiding principles of Watsonville planners is to “ encourage development

patterns that protect and are compatible with agricultural lands” 12 which also exist

in the Buena Vista areas I, II, and III. In addition, these areas are part of aircraft

safety zones. In Buena Vista I, this space includes Safety Zone 1, 2, and 3 ( Runway

Protection Zone, Inner Approach Zone, and Inner Turning Zone) for Runway 8.

7City of Watsonville Voter Information Pamphlet, Measure U, 2002.

8www. watsonvilleairport. com; Don French, quoted in Register- Pajaronian, p. 6, June 18, 2005.

9AMBAG Airports Economic Impact Study, p 14, 2003.

10AMBAG Monterey Bay Regional Airport System Plan, Table 2- 10, 2005.

11AMBAG Airports Economic Impact Study, p. 12, 2003.

12WatsonvilleVISTA2030.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 8 Watsonville Municipal Airport:

Headed for a Crash?

15. Watsonville Airport provided essential logistical support during the Loma Prieta

earthquake disaster relief operation. County emergency planners assume the airport,

if available, will be used again in this capacity during future major disaster relief

operations.

16. County emergency planners believe that in the event of a massive evacuation, all

highways would be gridlocked with outbound traffic, as happened in Houston

during the 2005 Hurricane Rita evacuation. Should a massive evacuation occur

here, Watsonville Airport will be the only practical means of getting significant

disaster relief assistance into Santa Cruz County.

17. The airport is not included in the county’s OES planning process. Although it is

acknowledged as an essential facility in the Santa Cruz County Operational Area

Emergency Management Plan, there has been no significant direct contact between

county or city emergency planners and airport personnel regarding the coordination

of emergency efforts.

18. Runway 8- 26 has been used to significantly increase capacity during disaster relief

operations.

19. Runway 8- 26 is used in twelve percent ( 12%) of all takeoffs and landings at the

airport. 13

20. Runway 8- 26 can be used by all aircraft currently based at the airport. The

importance of the runway to future airport operation is demonstrated by the

improvements planned, such as the blast pads built at each end of the runway to

protect against erosion from heavier aircraft taking off.

21. Runway 8- 26 increases airport availability from ninety- four ( 94%) to ninety- nine

percent ( 99%). Crosswind Runway 8- 26 is particularly important during adverse

wind and fog conditions14 prevalent in the summer. Summer weekends tend to be

the busiest time at the airport.

22. Runway 8- 26 can keep the airport open during maintenance of Runway 2- 20 or if

an accident closes 2- 20 again.

23. The proposed densities for Buena Vista I specified in WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 will

result in more households being exposed to the risks of off- airport accidents and

subject to noise pollution.

24. The Watsonville City Council has eliminated Safety Zone 3 ( Inner Turning Zone),

northwest of Runway 8 to justify greater housing density in Buena Vista I. 15 This

action has been opposed by Santa Cruz County Second District Supervisor Ellen

Pirie, CalTrans, and others. 16

13Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan, p. 26, 2002.

14Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan, p. 36, 2002

15City Council Resolution 74- 05, p. 3 & p. 5

16Pirie letter to Watsonville, May 5, 2006; Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006;

agenda packet for Watsonville City Council meeting, May 23, 2006.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Watsonville Municipal Airport: Page 2 - 9

Headed for a Crash?

25. Construction of additional housing northwest of Runway 8- 26 will increase the

danger from an off- airport landing. Such an event occurred to aircraft N23039 in

the late 1970’ s in the Buena Vista area. At that time, there were no serious

consequences because the aircraft was able to land safely in a plowed field. 17

26. WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 proposes a school in the Buena Vista II area within Zone

6 ( Traffic Pattern Zone), less than a mile from the northwest end of Runway 8- 26.

CalTrans has stated that Watsonville City Council cannot omit school placement

safety investigation requirements within Zone 6.18

27. Discussion has occurred by attendees at Watsonville City Council meetings

regarding the possibility of shortening Runway 8 to reduce Safety Zones 2 ( Inner

Safety Zone) and 4 ( Outer Safety Zone).

28. A shortened runway could raise safety concerns, as was demonstrated when an

aircraft had to abort a takeoff from Runway 8. The extra length of the runway

allowed the aircraft to land safely, just barely within the confines of the airport. 19

29. Excessive noise is already becoming an issue at the new Pajaro Valley High

School. 20

30. The purpose of an Airport Land Use Commission ( ALUC) is “ to protect public

health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the

adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive

noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these

areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.” 21 Santa Cruz County is

specifically excepted from requiring the formation of an ALUC by Public Utilities

Code, PUC, Section 21670.1 ( e), provided that they follow the requirements of

Section 21670.1 ( d)( 2) that “ height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are

compatible with airport operations” are adopted as part of the general plans of the

county and city. 22

31. The Watsonville City Council has been acting in the capacity of an ALUC. Because

it is acting as an ALUC, the Watsonville City Council is mandated by PUC Section

21670.1 ( e) to incorporate height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are

compatible with airport operations, as described in the ALUP Handbook.

32. Because Watsonville Airport does not have a separate ALUC, CalTrans often has

not received timely notifications of Watsonville City Council actions, especially

those outside the guidelines of the ALUP Handbook. CalTrans has stated that this

has hampered its ability to offer expert opinions, and has precluded it from timely

oversight of planning decisions.

17Maintenance log of aircraft N23093, January 1, 1976.

18Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006.

19Chauvet, power point presentation to APV, February 25, 2005.

20Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006.

21ALUP Handbook, p 1- 1, 2002.

22California Public Utilities Code 21670.1( e).

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 10 Watsonville Municipal Airport:

Headed for a Crash?

33. Without adequate documentation to support the critical change to this designation,

the Watsonville City Council designated Runway 8 as a low activity runway. 23

􀂾 Waddel Engineering Corporation provided data in 1994 to the airport showing

that Runway 8- 26 carried twelve percent ( 12%) of all airport traffic, with five

percent ( 5%) on Runway 8 and seven percent ( 7%) on Runway 26.24

Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee reported an adjustment of this

pattern [ two percent ( 2%) on Runway 8 and ten percent ( 10%) on Runway 26]

based solely on the estimates of the airport manager. 25

􀂾 Extrapolating from a ten- day airport count, total annual aircraft operations

( takeoffs and landings) were estimated at 120,000 in 1991,26 and were later

estimated at 122,500 annually. 27 Two percent ( 2%) of this number ( 2,450)

exceeds the guidelines for a low activity threshold ( less than 2,000 annual

operations) 28 by twenty- two percent ( 22%). However, the new estimate is less

than 100,000 aircraft operations annually, again based solely on the estimates

of the airport manager without a published study.

34. In its April 12, 2005 report, the City Council Airport Committee claims “ CalTrans

confirmed that the policies in the ALUP Handbook are intended as guidelines and

that variations in design, configuration and land use compatibility was [ sic]

available and within the scope of the City Council.” 29 This authority is used to

eliminate Safety Zone 3 ( Inner Turning Zone), thereby overriding housing densities

mandated by the ALUP Handbook.

35. CalTrans has stated that formally designating a runway as low activity does not

justify the elimination of Safety Zone 3.30 Enforcing lower population densities in

Safety Zone 3 by limiting housing construction is intended to reduce the

consequences of an off- airport accident. Safety zones are intended to delineate

higher probabilities of an off- aircraft accident based on large numbers of operations

at airports across the country.

36. The recommendation approved by Watsonville’s City Council Airport Committee

was inconsistent with the report prepared by their airport planning consultant,

Walter Gillfillan and Associates. That report’s Option 3 presents the pros and cons

for shortening Runway 8 and moving Safety Zone 3 ( Inner Turning Zone) onto

23Boyle, Principal Planner, “ Final EIR Comments”, citing Don French, Airport Manager, March 22,

2006.

24Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan 2001- 2020, p. 28, August 2002.

25Recommendations on Revision to the Watsonville Airport Crosswind Runway ( 8- 26), City Council

Airport Committee, April 1, 2006.

26Watsonville Airport: Airport Economic Impact Study, Appendix, 1991.

27Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan 2001- 2020, p. 30, August 2002.

28ALUP Handbook, p. 9- 42

29Recommendations on Revision to the Watsonville Airport Crosswind Runway ( 8- 26), City Council

Airport Committee, p. 4, April 1, 2006.

30ALUP Handbook, fig. 9K; Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Watsonville Municipal Airport: Page 2 - 11

Headed for a Crash?

airport property. The Gillfillan report did not recommend eliminating Safety Zone 3

in any of its options.

37. The maximum densities recommended by the ALUP Handbook in Safety Zones as

shown in the following table: 31

Safety Zone Maximum Density

( dwelling units per acre)

1: Runway Protection Zone 0

2: Inner Approach/ Departure Zone .05 to .10

3: Inner Turning Zone .20 to .50

4: Outer Approach/ Departure Zone .20 to .50

If the proposed 2,250 homes are built on the 458 acres in the Buena Vista areas, the

resulting average housing density ( approximately 5 dwelling units per acre) will

exceed the maximum density in Safety Zone 3 by a factor of 10 to 25. Any of the

planned “ medium” ( 10- 17 dwelling units per acre) density occurring within Safety

Zone 3 will exceed by 20 to 80 times the maximum density permitted.

38. CalTrans has recommended that an independent ALUC be formed. 32

Conclusions

1. While the City of Watsonville has a mandated housing goal, it does not have a

mandated location for the housing.

2. Watsonville Municipal Airport is not sufficiently valued as an economic asset to the

City of Watsonville and to Santa Cruz County.

3. Watsonville Airport is an essential regional asset in future disaster relief operations

in Santa Cruz County.

4. Crosswind Runway 8- 26 is critical to the vitality and efficacy of Watsonville

Municipal Airport.

5. If development proceeds according to WatsonvilleVISTA 2030, noise pollution

may become a serious issue in the Buena Vista areas.

6. If development proceeds according to WatsonvilleVISTA 2030, the risk that an

engine failure will have life threatening consequences to those on the ground is

unacceptably increased.

31ALUP Handbook, Table 9- C p 9- 47.

32Frederick - CalTrans letter to Watsonville, April 21, 2006.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 12 Watsonville Municipal Airport:

Headed for a Crash?

7. In the event of an off- airport accident in the Buena Vista areas, there will likely be a

significant demand for closure of Crosswind Runway 8- 26 or even the airport itself.

8. The Watsonville City Council’s failure to enforce the maximum population

densities in airport safety zones may increase Watsonville’s exposure to legal

liability in the event of an off- airport accident in these areas. The fact that there are

high populations within the safety zones of other runways at the airport does not

justify continuing the practice of violating airport safety zone building densities

northwest of Runway 8.

9. WatsonvilleVISTA 2030 threatens the viability of the Crosswind Runway 8- 26.

10. The Watsonville City Council has chosen to fulfill its housing planning needs at the

expense of airport safety and noise pollution.

11. Failure to enforce ALUP Handbook regulations to achieve the planning goals of

Measure U demonstrates an inherent conflict of interest in the City of Watsonville’s

ability to serve in the role of an ALUC.

12. The Watsonville City Council has not given appropriate weight to either the

airport’s or Santa Cruz County’s interests while serving as Watsonville Airport’s

ALUC.

Recommendations

1. Santa Cruz County should form an ALUC, with the help of the City of Watsonville,

Action Pajaro Valley, Watsonville Pilots Association, and LAFCO.

2. The City of Watsonville should comply with the Airport Land Use Planning

requirements of the FAA and the State of California.

3. When LAFCO considers extending the Urban Limit Line to include the Buena

Vista areas, it should evaluate all aspects of the airport’s importance to the entire

county of Santa Cruz as well as to the City of Watsonville, its housing needs, and

the safety of the citizens.

4. Santa Cruz County should officially recognize the importance of the airport to its

general welfare, both financially and in disaster response, by helping form an

ALUC. This will help in ensuring the airport’s preservation as an asset to the entire

county.

5. The Santa Cruz County Office of Emergency Services and the city managers of the

Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz, Capitola, and Watsonville must interact with

Watsonville Municipal Airport personnel to include the airport in all emergency

preparedness plans that could require use of the airport.

6. Runway 8- 26 is a vital component of Watsonville Municipal Airport and its current

operational capacity should be fully maintained.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Watsonville Municipal Airport: Page 2 - 13

Headed for a Crash?

Responses required

Entity Findings Recommendations Respond

Within

Santa Cruz County

Board of Supervisors

5, 9, 14- 17,

29- 30, 35, 37

1, 3, 4, 5 60 Days

( September 1,

2006)

City of Watsonville 7, 14, 17- 38 1, 2, 5, 6 90 days

( October 1, 2006)

City of Santa Cruz 17 5 90 days

( October 1, 2006)

City of Capitola 17 5 90 days

( October 1, 2006)

City of Scotts Valley 17 5 90 days

( October 1, 2006)

LAFCO 3, 30 1, 3 90 days

( October 1, 2006)

Office of Emergency

Services

County of Santa Cruz

15- 17 5 90 days

( October 1, 2006)

Responses requested but not required

Entity Findings Recommendations Respond

Within

Action Pajaro Valley 30 1 90 days

( October 1, 2006)

California

Department of

Transportation,

Division of

Aeronautics

13- 14, 23- 26,

28, 32, 34- 38

1, 2 90 days

( October 1, 2006)

Watsonville Pilots

Association

30 1 90 days

( October 1, 2006)

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 14 Watsonville Municipal Airport:

Headed for a Crash?

Appendix - Sources

Interviews

California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics personnel.

City of Watsonville personnel and former personnel.

Santa Cruz County personnel.

Action Pajaro Valley personnel.

Web sites

“ Abandoned & Little- Known Airfields,” www. airfields- freeman. com.

“ AirNav: KWVI - Watsonville Municipal Airport,” www. airnav. com/ airport/ WVI.

“ Airport Land Use Planning,”

www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ planning/ aeronaut/ htmlfile/ landuse. php.

“ AOPA Online - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,” www. aopa. org.

“ California Division of Aeronautics,”

www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ planning/ aeronaut/ htmlfile/ index. php.

“ City of Watsonville,” www. ci. watsonville. ca. us.

“ CPI Inflation Calculator,” data. bls. gov/ cgi- bin/ cpicalc. pl.

“ Federal Aviation Administration,” www. faa. gov.

“ FlightStats: Airports,” www. flightstats. us/ airport

“ Santa Cruz Sentinel - Online Edition,” www. santacruzsentinel. com.

“ WAPA Online: Aviation Interests in the Greater Worcester Area,”

ww2. worcesterapa. org/ articles.

“ Watsonville Airport History,” www. watsonvilleairport. com/ History. html.

“ Watsonville Municipal Airport,” www. watsonvilleairport. com.

“ Watsonville Pilots Assn, CA,” www. watsonvillepilots. org.

Documents

Agreement between the City of Watsonville and the United States of America,

June, 1943.

AMBAG, 2005 Monterey Bay Regional Airport System Plan, November 2005.

AMBAG, Airports Economic Impacts Study for Monterey, San Benito and Santa

Cruz Counties, Aug. 13, 2003.

Ballot Measure U, City of Watsonville, Voter Information Pamphlet, 2002.

Board of Aldermen, City of Watsonville, Resolutions 3355, 3366, 3373, 3389-

3405, 3413- 3421, 3424- 3429, 3437, 3456, 3559, 3731, 1942- 1944.

Boyle, Keith, Principal Planner, City of Watsonville, Final EIR Comments, to

“ Whom it may concern,” March 22, 1006.

Campaign to Save Pajaro Valley, P. O. Box 1423, Freedom, CA 95019, 1999.

California Department of Transportation Agency, California Airport Land Use

Planning Handbook, January 2002.

California Public Utilities Code Sect21670.1 et seq. Relating to the State

Aeronautics Act, February, 2006.

Chauvet, Dan, presentation to Action Pajaro Valley, February 25, 2005.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Watsonville Municipal Airport: Page 2 - 15

Headed for a Crash?

City Council Airport Committee, memo to City Council, titled “ Recommendations

on Revision to the Watsonville Airport Crosswind Runway ( 8- 26),” April 1,

2005.

City Council, City of Watsonville agenda and minutes, August 10, 2004, April 12,

2005, May 23, 2006.

City Council, City of Watsonville, Resolutions 199- 02; 309- 02; 74- 05.

City of Watsonville, Buena Vista I, II and III, Measure for future growth, February

2005.

City of Watsonville presentation to Action Pajaro Valley, February 25, 2005.

City of Watsonville Community Development Department. Memos from Director,

John T Doughty to Carlos Palacios, City Manager, April 4, 2004, August 10,

2004 and March 31, 2005.

City of Watsonville Housing Element p. 4- 1, Chart 4- 1 ( no date on document).

City of Watsonville, Voter Information Pamphlet, Measure U, 2002.

City of Watsonville, WatsonvilleVISTA 2030, June 2005 draft, updating

“ Watsonville 2005 General Plan” 1994.

Community Development Department, October 24, 2005.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Aeronautics Commission: minutes of the

November 17, 2004 meeting.

Excerpts from the draft of the FAA master plan, 2005.

Federal Aviation Administration News, Directive APA 25- 99, February 10, 1999.

Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Appendix B ( 1989), incorporated into

California Airport Land use Planning Handbook ( January, 2002).

Frederick, Mary C., Acting Chief Division of Aeronautics California Department

of Transportation, letter to Keith Boyle, City of Watsonville Community

Development Dept., April 21, 2006.

French, Don, article in the Register- Pajaronian, p. 6, June 18, 2005.

French, Don, Airport Manager, memo entitled “ Watsonville Airport, Past Present

and Future” to Carlos Palacios, City Manager, June 1999.

Hesnard, Sandy, California Department of Transportation, Division of

Aeronautics, Aviation Environmental Planner, letter to Keith Boyle, City of

Watsonville Community Development Department, October 24, 2005.

Instrument of Transfer between the United States of America and the City of

Watsonville, July, 1948.

Law Office of Alexander T. Henson, letter to City of Watsonville Planning

Department, October 19, 2005.

Office of Emergency Services, County of Santa Cruz, Operational Area

Emergency Management Plan, November 2005.

Overview Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, AOPA Online,

January 2005.

Pirie, Ellen, Santa Cruz County Second District Supervisor, letter to Watsonville

Mayor Antonio Rivas, May 5, 2006.

Walter E. Gillfillan and Associates, Walter Gillfillan memo to Watsonville General

Plan Steering Committee, June 24, 2004

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 16 Watsonville Municipal Airport:

Headed for a Crash?

Watsonville Airport: Airport Economic Impact Study, June 9, 1991.

Watsonville Airport General Plan 2002, portions of updated version, 2003, updated

amendments, April 12, 2005.

Watsonville Pilots Association, Watsonville Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,

August 1, 2002.

Watsonville Municipal Airport Master Plan, 2001- 2020; adopted 2003, amended

by resolution 74- 05, 2005.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Watsonville Municipal Airport: Page 2 - 17

Headed for a Crash?

Santa Cruz County

Grand Jury

Final Report:

Section 3

Criminal Justice Committee Reports

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Jails Review Page 3 - 1

Santa Cruz County

Jails Review

Definitions

Commissary: a place where inmates can purchase goods and toiletry items while in

custody. An inmate may request individuals from outside the jail to put money in his/ her

account for these purchases, or an inmate can earn credits by attending classes or working

in the jail for these purchases.

County Jail: a jail facility, usually operated by the County Sheriff, to hold un- sentenced

prisoners suspected of felony or misdemeanor crimes and sentenced prisoners facing a

term of one year or less

Electronic Monitoring: a program run by the Probation Department in which the

offender is fitted with an ankle bracelet that is programmed to apprise the Probation

Department of his/ her whereabouts

Felony: a major crime punishable by confinement in a state prison, county jail, or by

serving probation

Infirmary: an area within a healthcare unit set up and operated for the purpose of caring

for patients who need skilled nursing care but are not in need of hospitalization or

placement in a licensed nursing facility, and whose care cannot be managed safely in an

outpatient setting. It is not the area itself, but the scope of care provided that makes the

bed an infirmary bed.

Medium Security: a facility for inmates whose crime and criminal history do not pose a

high security risk. They are housed in a locked facility, but often in a dorm- like setting,

rather than in individual cells.

Minimum Security: a facility for inmates whose crime and criminal history pose very

little security risk. They are housed in an unlocked facility.

Misdemeanor: a less serious crime punishable by confinement in a county jail normally

for a period of one year or less, and/ or probation

“ O” Unit: the observation unit that includes rooms within the medical unit, where

inmates who are physically or mentally ill are monitored both by video and medical staff

Parole: a condition of a sentence whereupon a person convicted of a felony crime is

closely supervised by an agent ( Parole Officer) of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation after being released from prison

Parole Hold: a parolee is placed in custody at the local county jail by his/ her Parole

Officer for having violated the conditions of parole or for committing a new crime. A

hearing is held while the parolee is in custody ( Valdivia Hearing) to determine the

disposition of the parole violation.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 3 - 2 Jails Review

Plastic Boats: used by the Sheriff to sleep inmates when the population surpasses the

maximum capacity of the facility. The boat- shaped plastic bed sits directly on the floor

within a cell block.

Prison: a place of confinement operated by the State of California to house persons

convicted of a felony crime

Probation: a condition of the sentence whereupon a person convicted of a felony or

misdemeanor crime, who is out of custody, is supervised by an agent ( Probation Officer)

of the county Probation Department

Rated Capacity: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Corrections

Standards Authority, minimum standards for detention facilities, contained in Title 15 of

the California Code of Regulations. It includes the number of inmates each detention

facility was built to hold ( rated capacity) and the number of inmates that can safely be

housed in the facility ( maximum capacity).

Rubber Room: an isolated room in which the walls and floors are covered in a rubber

material. Inmates who present a serious danger to themselves can be housed in this room,

which is monitored by a surveillance camera and visited by staff every fifteen minutes.

SAFE: Safe and Free Environment Program which is derived from the Residential

Substance Abuse Treatment Grant ( RSAT). This program is in operation at the Rountree

Medium Security facility for male inmates.

Sobriety Cell: used if a newly arrested individual needs time to sober up before going

through the booking process

Ward: an offender who is under the age of eighteen years whose case is under the

jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court

Background

There are seven facilities that comprise the jail system in Santa Cruz County:

1. Main Jail

2. Rountree Medium

3. Rountree Minimum

4. Blaine Street

5. Court Holding

6. Juvenile Hall

7. Camp 45

The first five facilities listed are operated by the Santa Cruz County Sheriff. Juvenile Hall

is operated by the Probation Department. The budget for each of these facilities is under

the control of the county Board of Supervisors. Camp 45 is operated by the California

Department of Corrections, and its budget is under the control of the State of California.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Jails Review Page 3 - 3

Scope

The Grand Jury is mandated by California Penal Code § 919( b) to inspect and report on

the conditions and management of the jail facilities within the county. To satisfy this

mandate, the Criminal Justice Committee of the Grand Jury:

• inspected each facility at least once;

• spoke with management, staff, and inmates at each facility;

• reviewed previous Grand Jury reports, paying particular interest to prior

recommendations;

• reviewed relevant laws in the California Penal Code and Code of Regulation;

• reviewed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation inspection

reports for each facility.

Main Jail

The Santa Cruz Main Jail is located at 259 Water Street, across the street from the

County Courthouse. Two visits were made. The first visit was during the day on

September 29, 2005, and the second visit was in the evening on March 2, 2006.

Main Jail Findings

1. On September 29, 2005, the total inmate population was 384. On March 2, 2006,

the population was 330. The current rated capacity is 311, with a maximum

capacity of 400. The jail population consists of both male and female inmates

who have cases pending, have been sentenced, or who are awaiting sentencing.

When beds are not available due to overcrowding, temporary beds called

“ boats” are used.

2. All law enforcement agencies must bring newly arrested individuals to the main

jail for processing. This process is known as being “ booked.” Additionally, all

newly booked inmates are shown a video that explains the rules and what the

inmate should expect while being housed at the jail. A copy of the video was

provided to this Grand Jury for review. The video is available in English and

Spanish.

3. The County of Santa Cruz had two significant issues of non- compliance issued

by the California Department of Corrections. The issues included overcrowding

and inadequate staffing. 1

4. In the 2004- 2005 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Jail Review, it

was reported that the booking fees per inmate for the fiscal year through April

2005 were $ 168.00. This fee was paid by each city law enforcement agency, and

then each city agency was reimbursed by the State of California. Figures

1 California Department of Corrections Inspection Report, November 17, 2005.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 3 - 4 Jails Review

provided by a county analyst reflect that revenue actually collected as of April

2005, was approximately $ 850,380.00. In May 2005, the booking fee was

increased to $ 211.35. However, due to the change in Government Code § 29550,

the county is now only able to bill for half of the actual costs of booking. The

actual “ reimbursed” booking fee amount is now $ 105.68. Due to this reduction

in reimbursable booking fees, the actual revenue seen in the past year will be

lowered by thirty- seven percent.

5. The Grand Jury observed that this facility’s ongoing maintenance was apparent.

The smell of fresh paint was in the air, and painting of the inside was reported to

be continuous. Inside doors were being upgraded and/ or repaired. Plans are in

place to renovate the plumbing and shower system in one of the cell block areas.

The jail was clean in appearance. Inmates were respectful toward all officers.

6. While there are cameras at the main entrance to the jail, surveillance cameras

were lacking on the outside of the facility by the vehicle entrance to the booking

area.

7. Visiting rooms, both “ non- contact” and “ contact” were inspected. Visiting hours

for both attorneys and civilians had strict requirements. A survey was sent to ten

defense attorney offices in the county soliciting input regarding conditions of the

visiting rooms and hours of visiting. 2 Soon after that survey, the visiting hours

for attorneys were expanded to allow 24- hour access, except at meals. The “ non-contact”

attorney visiting rooms had been greatly improved. Feedback has been

positive.

8. Inmate grievances are reviewed by detention staff. Responses to the inmates’

grievances are made both orally and in writing.

9. An upgraded “ strip search room” is pending construction. Plans are in progress

to enlarge and remodel the kitchen facility.

10. A formal meeting room, once used as a library, is now being used to conduct

parole hearings.

11. Programs and classes that are available to the inmates include: educational and

GED programs, religious services, counseling, anger management, parenting

classes, domestic violence classes, and drug and alcohol classes. Attendance is

high.

12. Prior to inmate placement in a housing unit, strict criteria of classification are

followed. This placement process includes: an interview with the inmate to

determine criminal sophistication, gender, whether there is a need for the inmate

to be in protective custody due to gang affiliation and charges, if the inmate is an

escape risk, if the inmate has any physical, medical, or mental health needs.

13. Tuberculosis ( TB) testing is an optional component of the booking process.

2 See Appendix.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Jails Review Page 3 - 5

14. There was one reported death this year at the jail prior to our first site visit. A

copy of the report on this incident was requested from the Sheriff, but has not

been provided.

15. There have been no escapes in the past year.

16. Correctional officers receive twenty- four hours of training each year under the

Standard Training for Corrections, which is under the Department of

Corrections. This is state- mandated training to review commonly accepted

practice and to further educate officers and deputies on changes in the field and

in dealing with inmates.

17. The Medical Unit treats inmates from all county jail facilities. All medical staff

are employed by the county Health Services Agency ( HSA), and their budget is

approved by the Board of Supervisors.

18. A member of the medical staff is on- site twenty- four hours a day, seven days a

week. Medical staff includes one physician, registered nurses, unlicensed

assistive personnel ( UAP), a mental health psychiatric technician, a nurse

practitioner, and a medical assistant.

19. As stated in previous jail reviews, the nurses’ pay schedule is below what a

nurse can earn in the private sector. Detention facility nurses earn $ 37.00 per

hour, while a nurse at a local hospital could earn $ 51.00 per hour. In December

2005, there were three vacancies for registered nurses. These positions include

nursing responsibilities at the Main Jail, Juvenile Hall, and Rountree.

20. When an inmate requires medical treatment that cannot be provided by the

medical unit, for conditions such as stroke, heart attack, cancer, or broken bones,

the inmate is taken by ambulance or patrol car to Dominican Hospital, Doctors

on Duty, or the County Health Clinic. The hourly cost for a deputy to transport

an inmate is $ 65.00. The Sheriff’s Department has a contract for services with a

private security company to guard hospitalized inmates for $ 18.08 per hour.

21. “ O” unit is designated for inmates with serious psychiatric problems. Seven of

the rooms have video monitoring. One healthcare worker is present in this unit.

There is a padded or “ rubber” room known as Room 13 that is used to house

inmates who are a danger to themselves or others. The room is monitored by

video surveillance and physically inspected every fifteen minutes.

22. Inmates who need to take medication receive it in the form of a bubble pack. By

taking advantage of this method of dispensing medications to inmates, the jail is

able to return any unused medications. The County of Santa Cruz, through the

Health and Human Services Agency, has contracted with a company that allows

unused medication to be returned. Approximately ten to eighteen percent of the

jail population is on psychotropic drugs.

23. The jail has been, and continues to be, a no smoking facility.

24. The Grand Jury observed that the surrounding grounds were clean and well

maintained.

2005- 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 3 - 6 Jails Review

Main Jail Conclusions

1. All officers and staff conducted themselves in a professional manner during site

inspections.

2. Upgrades to the plumbing, kitchen, and the “ strip search” rooms are being

undertaken.

3. The outside grounds are being maintained.

4. Overcrowding remains an issue.

5. The low pay scale for nursing staff makes it difficult to attract and keep

personnel.

6. The new “ bubble pack” for dispensing medications has proven to be cost

effective.

7. A video prepared for newly arrested individuals has proven to be of assistance in

the booking process.

8. The recent improvements made to the interview rooms, the increase in attorney

visiting hours, and the renovation of the old library into a room used for parole

hearings have received positive responses.

9. Because TB testing for a newly booked inmate is non- mandatory, it raises a

health risk due to the fact that TB can be easily transmitted. The health risk to

staff and other inmates is a concern.

10. The lack of cameras for monitoring the outside garage/ booking area needs to be

addressed for enhanced security.

11. The recent loss of booking fee revenue, due to the reduction in reimbursement

amounts from the State of California, will have an effect on the jail budget.

Main Jail Recommendations

1. The Sheriff’s Department should continue with its improvement projects

currently in progress for the renovation of the plumbing, the kitchen, and the

“ strip search” rooms.

2. The Board of Supervisors should review nurses’ salaries and consider pay

increases to attract and retain competent staff.

3. The projected loss of revenue due to the decrease in booking fees collected and

the impact that it will have on the jail and jail staff should be addressed by the

Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff.

4. Potential liability could be reduced by upgrading surveillance cameras for the

areas around the jail and garage/ booking area. These upgrades sh