Sebastopol City Council
September 2, 2025

F2. The County EOP is intended to be executed in an ad hoc manner without advance identification of specific evacuation routes or predesignated shelters.

F3. Most of Sonoma County’s major evacuation routes are incapable of accommodating predictable evacuation traffic in a timely manner.

F4. Most roads critical to emergency evacuation in the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County have no remotely managed capability for controlling traffic flow, and existing traffic controls will not be operational during power failures.

F5. The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office is primarily responsible for ensuring public safety during evacuations, but SCSO staffing may require temporary assignment of non-SCSO County employees for concurrent execution of household evacuation notices and evacuation route traffic management.

F6. Organized community-based communications networks are a proven emergency resource yet remain only partly integrated into county and city emergency operations and communications infrastructures and require additional investment to provide county-wide coverage.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:

R1.By December 5, 2026, the Board of Supervisors shall direct Sonoma Public Infrastructure to estimate and report the necessary cost and location of radio repeaters needed to fully implement GMRS repeaters serving the entire County.

R2.The Board of Supervisors shall direct the Department of Emergency Management to report on the resources required to accelerate Emergency Operations Plan Annex Goals SE2 and SE5 from 2030 to 2027 by February 2, 2026, and shall evaluate this resource requirement for inclusion in the 2027 County budget.

R3. By July 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors shall fund Department of Emergency Management acquisition of evacuation management modeling and simulation software which will facilitate advance identification of zone-specific evacuation routes and evacuation messaging.

R4.The Board of Supervisors shall direct the Department of Emergency Management to report on the resources required to identify and include within County Evacuation Maps the location of all predesignated county-operated evacuation shelters by March 2, 2026.

R5.By July 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors and the Sonoma County Sheriff shall review Sonoma County evacuation plans to determine whether trained and certified Sonoma County employees (using the authority granted by California Government Code Gov. Code §§3100–3102) should become a resource for emergency traffic control operations.

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the civil grand jury requires responses as follows:
• Sonoma County Board of Supervisors F1-F6, R1- R5
• Sonoma County Department of Emergency Management F1-4, F6; R2, R3, R4 • Sonoma County Public Infrastructure Department to respond to F1, F3, F4, F6; R1 • Sonoma County Sheriff to respond to F1-F6, R5
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Who Can Afford to Live in Sonoma County?
A Tale of Two Cities

SUMMARY
Sonoma County, renowned for its picturesque landscapes and vibrant culture, is increasingly becoming a challenging place for many of its essential residents to call home. Service workers, agricultural laborers, teachers, and young families—the very backbone of the community—are finding it increasingly difficult to afford housing in a region where the median sales price of a home reached a staggering $900,000 in April 2025. This price tag is simply out of reach for most homebuyers.

The pressing question becomes: how can Sonoma County make housing more affordable for these vital populations?
To address this issue, it is crucial to define what we mean by "affordable housing." The U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines affordable housing as housing that costs no more than 30% of a household's gross income, encompassing both rental options and homeownership.

A report from the 2021-22 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury, titled “Affordable Housing: Past, Present, and Future1”, provided a thorough examination of the affordable housing landscape in the county. The report revealed a significant shortfall in affordable housing, a situation exacerbated by rising construction costs, intricate financing challenges, and a scarcity of available land.

Unfortunately, the situation has not improved over the past two years. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has mandated that Sonoma County construct 14,562 new housing units between 2023 and 20312 through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. While this figure may seem substantial, organizations like the non-profit Generation Housing argue that it falls short of meeting the County's future housing needs.

The importance of fostering a diverse mix of housing options cannot be overstated. A stable community benefits everyone. It is essential for families and workers to be able to afford to stay in the area. According to the October 2024 report “State of Housing in Sonoma County”3 from Generation Housing, 31.4% of Sonoma County’s workforce commutes from outside the region, a trend that strains the local economy, exacerbates traffic congestion, increases the carbon footprint, and adversely affects the health and educational outcomes of those workers and their families.

This report aims to shed light on the complexities of developing affordable housing and to showcase the strategies employed by two particular cities to promote such development. It discusses the contrasting approaches of two communities: Healdsburg, an affluent town celebrated for its tourism, historic plaza, and wine estates, and Rohnert Park, a more modest community known for its familyfriendly atmosphere, Sonoma State University, and the Graton Rancheria. Both cities have received the Prohousing Designation from the State of California and are on track to meet their expanded RHNA goals, offering a glimpse of hope in the ongoing struggle for affordable housing in Sonoma County.
1 https://sonoma.courts.ca.gov/system/files/affordable-housing-past-present-future.pdf 2 https://permitsonoma.org/housingelement 3 https://generationhousing.org/resources/
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

This analysis examines the multifaceted strategies employed by these two municipalities to foster the development of affordable housing. It focuses on four critical elements: Growth Management and Land Acquisition, Entitlement Process, Financing Mechanisms, and Leadership and Community Involvement. Through a comparative case study approach, this report sets out the policies, programs, and collaborative efforts undertaken by these cities, highlighting successful interventions and persistent challenges in addressing regional housing affordability crises.

GLOSSARY
• ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments
• Affordable Housing: As defined by HUD, housing that costs no more that 30 percent of a household’s gross income
• Deed Restricted: A mechanism to ensure that homes or rental units remain affordable for lowincome residents for a set period, typically 55 years • Inclusionary Housing: A program that requires developers to build a percentage of new residential units which will be rented or sold at affordable prices based on income • Prevailing Wage: The minimum hourly rate of wages and benefits that contractors must pay workers on public works projects, set by the California Department of Industrial Relations • Prohousing Designation: California Department of Housing and Community Development acknowledges a jurisdiction that has gone beyond the state law to help accelerate housing production
• RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Allocation – State-mandated process that determines the number of housing units each city and county need
• Surplus Property: Per the Surplus Property Act, land owned by a local public agency that is no longer necessary for the agency's use and that has been formally declared surplus by the agency. This land is then made available for affordable housing development under certain conditions

BACKGROUND
Sonoma County is grappling with a critical shortage of affordable housing, a situation worsened by rising construction costs, intricate financing challenges, and a scarcity of available land. In 2022, the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury released a report titled “Affordable Housing: Past, Present, and Future,” which provided an in-depth analysis of the affordable housing landscape in Sonoma County. This report examined historical policies, current obstacles, and future strategies to tackle the region’s housing crisis, including a discussion of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process.

The California State Legislature mandates that all cities, towns, and counties proactively plan for the housing needs of their residents. This planning is executed through a Housing Element and the RHNA process. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines the total number of new homes each region must construct, and the affordability levels required to meet the diverse housing needs of its population. Once these figures are established, regional authorities, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for Sonoma County, allocate housing responsibilities among municipalities. Each municipality then updates its Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Housing Element to demonstrate its capacity to zone sufficient land for the construction of the required housing units based on its RHNA allocation.

Housing Element plans operate on an eight-year cycle. The current sixth cycle (2023-2031) has set a RHNA goal of 14,562 new housing units for the county, a significant increase from the fifth cycle's goal of 8,444 units. These targets encompass a range of housing types, from very low-income to market-rate units. It is important to note that the RHNA goals do not fully capture the total housing need within each county; rather, they represent the number of units for which the county is accountable. Municipalities may not directly construct all these units but can collaborate with and/or incentivize private or non-profit developers to meet these goals.

This report focuses on two distinct communities: Healdsburg, an affluent area renowned for its wineries and tourism, and Rohnert Park, a family-oriented planned community. Both cities are on track to meet their expanded RHNA goals for 2023-2031 and have achieved a Prohousing Designation. The 2019-2020 Budget Act introduced a range of support, incentives, and accountability measures aimed at fulfilling California’s housing objectives, including the establishment of the Prohousing Designation Program. This program recognizes and supports jurisdictions that exceed state housing laws to expedite housing production. Jurisdictions with a Prohousing Designation may benefit from priority processing or additional funding points when applying for various funding programs, including Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC).
4 Furthermore, this designation allows jurisdictions to apply for the Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP)5, which rewards local governments with extra funding to accelerate the production and preservation of affordable housing.

Healdsburg
Healdsburg has a long and rich history, beginning as the home of the Indigenous Pomo people. In the 19th century, the region came under Mexican control following a military campaign led by General Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo. In 1841, 50,000 acres were granted to Henry Delano Fitch, who introduced cattle ranching to the area. Following Fitch’s death, his widow sold portions of the land to the Anglo government. Harmon Heald, who had been homesteading in the area, purchased 100 acres and formally incorporated the City of Healdsburg in 1867.

Healdsburg quickly grew into a commercial hub, supported by agriculture, timber, and mineral extraction—industries made more accessible by the Northwest Pacific Railway line. Over time, the region’s agricultural base expanded to include orchards and vineyards. By the 1970s, Healdsburg began to establish itself as a premier wine-producing region, drawing estate wineries to Dry Creek and Alexander Valleys and ushering in a growing tourism industry.

During the past 40 years, the City of Healdsburg has transformed from a small town serving the surrounding northern Sonoma County agriculture and other resource-based industries into a vibrant community-center of the county’s wine industry, as well as an attraction for destination-based tourism. Healdsburg growth has been influenced by the county’s wine industry, and the city’s central plaza where award-winning restaurants, destination-oriented retail, and wine tasting shops now dominate retail space. The plaza’s pleasant surrounding residential neighborhoods, protected by planning policies and ballot-based growth restrictions, have all contributed to this transformation.

Healdsburg’s fiscal and economic policies have been highly successful—the expanded retail uses, restaurants and lodging have created a stable and growing tax base for the city which supports high 4 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-and-funding/programs-active/affordable-housing-and-sustainable-communities 5 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-and-funding/programs-active/prohousing-incentive-program Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

levels of municipal services to its residents. Increasing home values have led to substantial reinvestment and improvement of the existing housing stock, new development, including higher density housing and lodging, and revitalization of existing commercial buildings.

However, this success has created a housing market that has become unaffordable to long-term residents and families with young children. The city’s teachers, agricultural, and hospitality workers are increasingly displaced by rising land prices driven by a supply-constrained market. With a continuing decrease in working families and full-time residents, a variety of demographic effects have set in, including an overall aging of the population, a reduction in school-age population and attendance in local public schools, and a decrease in the percentage of Hispanic households, which have, over the recent decades, become the foundation of the local workforce serving agriculture, construction, retail, and lodging industries and which still comprise over 30 percent of the City’s population.

Rohnert Park
Rohnert Park, originally agricultural land tied to the Rohnert family and seed farming in the early 20th century, was developed as one of the first planned communities in the United States in the 1950s and officially incorporated in 1962. The intent was to develop a family-oriented community with cohesive neighborhoods, where no child would have to walk more than one-third of a mile to school. At the time, each neighborhood would have 200 to 250 homes around local schools and parks.

At incorporation, Rohnert Park was 2.1 square miles with a population of 2,775. Growth exploded in the 1970s and 80s, when two-thirds of the current housing units were built. By 1999, the city occupied 6.9 square miles, nearly half of which was dedicated to residential use for its population of approximately 41,000. Since the year 2000, the city has continued to grow in size and add population. As of January 1, 2020, the city had a population of 44,330 and land area of approximately 7.7 square miles. Rohnert Park is the third largest city in Sonoma County and has the highest population density in the county at over 6,000 residents per square mile.

Housing Goals for Healdsburg and Rohnert Park
Below are charts which describe the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Goals for both communities, detailing the number of units by income category.

Healdsburg
In the fifth cycle (2014-2022), Healdsburg’s RHNA goal was to build 157 housing units. The city built 342 units, exceeding its goal in all income categories. For the sixth cycle, Healdsburg’s goal is 476 units. The city anticipates building 977 units, again exceeding goals in all income categories.

Table 1 was provided to the Grand Jury by Healdsburg Housing staff.

Table 1: Healdsburg Housing Progress (2023-31 RHNA)
Metric
Extremely
Low
Income
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income Totals
RHNA Target 83 107 109 49 128 476
Total, Credits 54 174 161 75 513 977
See Appendix A for income range chart.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Rohnert Park
For the fifth cycle, Rohnert Park’s RHNA goal was 899 new houses. It actually built 1,978, although the majority were above moderate income. Rohnert Park’s sixth cycle RHNA goal is 1,580 units.

Table 2, provided to the Grand Jury by Rohnert Park Housing staff, shows the city plans to build 2,834 units, again exceeding their RHNA goal.

Table 2: Rohnert Park Housing Progress (2023-31 RHNA)
Metric
Very
Low
Inco
me
Low
Inco
me
Moder
ate
Income
Above
Moder
ate
Income Total
RHNA Target 399 230 265 686 1,580
Total Units
(Credits +
Sites) 375 208 128 2,123 2,834
This report will discuss the unique aspects of each city and the strategies each employed to build community will and secure the essential land and financing to make it a reality.

METHODOLOGY
The 2024-2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury conducted its investigation into affordable housing issues in the cities of Rohnert Park and Healdsburg. This inquiry was prompted by ongoing community concerns regarding the adequacy, availability, and planning of affordable housing in compliance with state mandates, particularly those related to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

To understand the scope and nuances of affordable housing efforts in these two cities, the Grand Jury undertook the following activities:
• Interviews: The Grand Jury conducted confidential interviews with city officials and staff from the affordable housing departments of both Rohnert Park and Healdsburg. Members of the respective city councils were also interviewed to gain insight into local housing policy priorities and political considerations.
• Media Review: The Grand Jury reviewed reports and articles from local and regional mass media sources.
• Housing Advocate Input: Conversations were held with unaffiliated housing advocates and nonprofit representatives working within Sonoma County. These advocates provided perspectives on systemic barriers, funding limitations, and the lived experiences of residents impacted by the lack of affordable housing.
• Document and Data Analysis: The Grand Jury reviewed housing element updates submitted by each city, planning commission meeting records, and RHNA allocation data as provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Additional online sources were used to verify state laws and regulatory frameworks governing local housing obligations, per the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

DISCUSSION
The following discussion focuses on the key components each city is utilizing to reach its goals. The strategies of the cities differ but ultimately result in exceeding their housing targets. The salient ingredients of each city’s success are the depth of understanding of necessary resources and development of community will. The catalyst in both cases is a knowledgeable, dedicated staff.

The following sections of the discussion will focus on the individual facets of each city’s comprehensive strategy to accomplish their goals. Examples from each city are shown.

1. Introduction: Key Components for Affordable Housing Development The creation and preservation of affordable housing in urban and suburban environments necessitate a multi-pronged approach addressing systemic barriers and leveraging local assets. This section investigates how two Sonoma County cities, Healdsburg and Rohnert Park, have addressed four pivotal elements influencing affordable housing provision:

1. Growth Management and Land Acquisition

2. Entitlement Process

3. Financing

4. Leadership and Community Involvement

1.1 Growth Management and Land Acquisition Strategies
Effective urban planning requires cities to balance growth pressures with the imperative to acquire land suitable for affordable housing development in a cost-efficient manner. Both Healdsburg and Rohnert Park have instituted growth management strategies to regulate residential expansion.

Growth Management Ordinances and General Plans
Healdsburg's Measure M6, enacted in 2000, established limits on residential building permits within the City's urban growth boundary. Subsequent modifications via Measure P (2018)7 and Measure H (2020)8 aimed to increase affordable housing opportunities by adjusting these permit allocations.

Conversely, Rohnert Park utilizes its General Plan, specific plan areas, and zoning ordinances as primary instruments for growth management, thereby facilitating orderly development aligned with regional housing needs assessments. The City monitors demographic trends, employment data, and commute patterns to inform development strategies and address workforce housing requirements.

Healdsburg: Adaptive Growth Management
Healdsburg’s 2000 Growth Management Ordinance (GMO)9 restricted the City to an average issuance of 30 residential building permits annually (maximum 90 per triennium), a measure intended to preserve the City’s perceived small-town character. In response to escalating housing affordability concerns, Measure P (2018) authorized an additional average of 50 annual permits for multi-family rental units, restricted to households earning up to 160% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Measure H (2020) subsequently expanded this allowance to include for-sale units. An attempt in 2024 to further modify the GMO, Measure O, proposed allowing multi-family housing along designated Healdsburg Avenue corridors to stimulate middle-income and workforce housing. 6 https://healdsburg.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/3147?fileID=24038 7 https://ballotpedia.org/Healdsburg,_California,_Measure_P,_Additional_Housing_Permits_for_Rental_Units_(November_2018) 8 https://ballotpedia.org/Healdsburg,_California,_Measure_H,_IncomeRestricted_Housing_for_Rent_or_Sale_Ordinance_(March_2020) 9 http://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/766/Growth-Management-Ordinance-Policies-and-Procedures-PDF Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

This measure was not adopted by voters. Data from the Grand Jury’s interviews suggests that voter concerns centered on potential dilution of downtown character and insufficient safeguards for community interests within the proposed legislation. Nevertheless, the legislative intent underlying Measure O remains a significant consideration for Healdsburg's housing leadership.

Rohnert Park: Urban Growth Boundaries and Exemptions
Rohnert Park adopted its Urban Growth Boundaries Act (Measure N) 10 in 2000 to demarcate areas
for development and mitigate urban sprawl. The City’s Growth Management Ordinance (#667)11, established in 2001, aimed to align new housing development with infrastructure and public service capacities, stipulating a 1% annual population growth cap (approximately 225 new housing units per annum). Notably, this ordinance exempts specific housing categories, including affordable units for low- and very low-income households, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), model homes, mobile home park conversions, residential infill projects, and conversions of non-residential properties to residential use. Such legislative provisions indicate a pro-housing orientation within the electorate.

1.2 Land Acquisition Mechanisms
Municipalities employ diverse strategies for acquiring land suitable for affordable housing. These include the disposition of surplus lands, partnerships with community land trusts, and the formation of public-private partnerships. Along with direct land acquisition, cities develop incentive programs designed to encourage developers to integrate affordable units into larger, mixed-use projects.

Within Sonoma County, prevalent strategies include the use of surplus land, land banking, and navigating the land entitlement process.

Surplus Land Utilization
Cities may sell or lease publicly owned land for affordable housing development, subject to compliance with California's Surplus Land Act (SLA)12. The SLA was updated in August 2024 to further incentivize affordable housing through streamlined disposition processes. Key SLA provisions mandate:
• Formal declaration of land as surplus by local agencies at regular public meetings. • Submission of annual surplus property inventory reports to HCD. • Maintenance by HCD of a list of interested affordable housing developers known as "sponsors".

If land is not sold or leased to a sponsor, the public entity must record an Affordable Housing Covenant mandating at least 15% affordable units in any future project comprising 10 or more units.

Healdsburg Example: In 2003, Healdsburg’s former Redevelopment Agency acquired a property at 155 Dry Creek Road for $1.8 million that was designated for low to moderate-income housing.

Following the surplus land process and securing an exemption, the city transferred the property to Burbank Housing13, a non-profit housing development corporation, for the nominal sum of $1. An additional $1.7 million in grants has been secured for construction, with Burbank Housing actively pursuing $9.7 million in farmworker housing grants and tax credits.

Rohnert Park Example: Over a decade ago, Rohnert Park purchased a 30-acre parcel for $12.5 million for a proposed downtown mixed-use development. The city, in collaboration with HCD, 10 https://www.northbaybiz.com/2008/02/29/preserving-rohnert-parks-potential/ 11 https://rpcity.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=358&meta_id=33318 12 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/public-lands-affordable-housing-development 13 https://burbankhousing.org/ Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

designated this parcel as surplus, formulated a detailed development plan incorporating 150,000 sq. ft. of retail space and 400 residential units (25% designated affordable). It subsequently selected a developer via a competitive bidding process.

Land Banking
Land banking involves the acquisition and holding of land by public or private entities for future development, often prioritized for affordable housing or community revitalization. This strategy may encompass undeveloped, vacant, or blighted properties.

Healdsburg Example: The city is currently exploring the establishment of a Housing Trust Fund to support land banking for future affordable housing initiatives. This fund may evolve into a Housing Land Trust, with the primary objective of securing land for long-term affordability, operating independently but in alignment with city housing goals.

Rohnert Park Example: The aforementioned acquisition of the 30-acre downtown parcel for $12.5 million, using city funds, also exemplifies land banking for future mixed-use development.

2. The Entitlement Process
A significant portion of Sonoma County’s undeveloped land requires regulatory entitlements prior to residential or other forms of development. This process entails adherence to zoning regulations, land use policies, environmental review (California Environmental Quality Act), and public input, culminating in the issuance of necessary permits and approvals.

Both Healdsburg and Rohnert Park have implemented measures to streamline their entitlement processes to meet sixth Cycle Housing Element objectives. These include offering early developer feedback and utilizing Development Agreements (DAs) for large-scale projects. DAs are negotiated contracts specifying terms for land use, public benefits, project timelines, and vesting rights, providing developers with regulatory certainty.

Healdsburg Example: The city provides no-cost pre-application meetings, offers fast-track processing for ADUs and affordable housing projects, and has established formal written preapplication procedures. Furthermore, Healdsburg prepares Program Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) to reduce environmental review costs and timelines for projects covered under these programmatic assessments. The city actively applies state housing laws.

Rohnert Park Example: The city offers optional pre-application meetings with multidisciplinary staff to provide early project feedback. Upon formal application submission, projects undergo a structured review process, typically involving three-week cycles for staff feedback. Larger multifamily projects generally necessitate Site Plan and Architectural Review, a process taking approximately 90 days from application completeness to approval. While most projects receive administrative approval, Planning Commission review may be required under specific circumstances.

3. Financing Affordable Housing
Financing constitutes a critical, albeit complex, component of new housing development. A comprehensive delineation of the intricate and innovative financing strategies that influence the scope and viability of affordable housing projects is beyond the purview of this report. This section, therefore, offers only a foundational overview. Affordable housing finance typically necessitates a confluence of public funding, private investment, and strategic partnerships.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)14 program serves as the principal federal instrument supporting affordable rental housing, incentivizing developers through Federal tax credits.

Municipalities augment these efforts by offering local incentives such as land donations, impact fee waivers, and density bonuses.
“Inclusionary housing” has emerged as a significant mechanism for affordable housing production in Sonoma County. As housing valuations increase, cities incentivize developers and landowners by allowing higher-value property development contingent upon the inclusion of affordable units. A typical inclusionary housing program might mandate that 10-30% of new residential units be sold or rented to lower-income households. California state policy empowers municipalities to implement such local inclusionary policies.

Most municipalities require deed restrictions for a minimum of 45 years for for-sale projects and 55 years for rental projects on units approved under inclusionary housing programs that receive city financial assistance or state housing density bonuses. These restrictions ensure long-term affordability for targeted income groups and dictate terms concerning sale, rent controls, and property aesthetics. Cities also employ other financing tools, including fee waivers, density bonuses, public-private partnerships, and state funding allocations.

3.1 City-Specific Financing Examples
Healdsburg: A Multi-Tiered Approach
Healdsburg has advanced its affordable housing initiatives through a combination of inclusionary housing mandates, state funding, and targeted special taxes.

Inclusionary Housing: Healdsburg requires 20% of residential units to be affordable. Through negotiated Development Agreements (DA), the city has secured affordable housing units in significant developments such as the Mill District, North Village, Montage, and Hotel Trio. A notable provision in Healdsburg's DAs requires developers to obtain “certificates of occupancy” for affordable housing units prior to constructing market-rate units.

Project & Unit Allocation:
• Mill District: 42 units (The Randall), 30 Middle Income Units • Hotel Trio: 37 Unit Citrine Apartments (Low-to-Moderate Income) • North Village: 53 Very Low-Low Income, 27 Middle Income • Montage: 110 Affordable Units
State Funding: In August 2024, Healdsburg secured $21.1 million in state funding via the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program for Phase 1 of the Saggio Hills development. This phase, targeting households earning between 16–60% of area median income (AMI), will deliver 48 affordable rental units within a larger 118-unit project. The funds will support the construction of these 48 units, a 3,000-square-foot community building, and essential infrastructure and transportation improvements with broader community benefits. Notably, Saggio Hills achieved the highest score in the Rural Innovation Project Area (RIPA), 15reflecting strong 14 http://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS22389#:~:text=The%20lowincome%20housing%20tax%20credit%20(LIHTC)%20program%20is,from%2050%25%20to%2025%25; 15 https://sgc.ca.gov/grant-programs/ahsc/docs/20250325-AHSC_R9_Program_Overview_PDF_ADA.pdf Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

alignment with state objectives for greenhouse gas emission reduction. The development is projected to reduce 3,880 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent over its lifespan.

Funding Allocation:
• $15.3 million: Housing development (48 affordable rental units, associated infrastructure). • $5.2 million: Public works and transportation (Healdsburg Shuttle expansion with ZEV, multiuse trails, sidewalk enhancements, new bus shelters, CalVans vanpools). • $605,750: Community programs (transit passes, legal aid, workforce development, improved internet access).

Special Taxes: The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), levied on lodging establishments, was increased by Healdsburg voters via Measure S16 in 2016. This authorized a 2% increase, raising the maximum rate from 12% to 14%, generating approximately $1.5 million annually, with all additional revenue restricted to supporting affordable housing services and programs.

Rohnert Park: Diverse Financial Instruments
Rohnert Park has employed inclusionary housing, state funding, density bonuses, and essential housing bond financing to bolster its affordable housing efforts.

Inclusionary Housing: Rohnert Park is undergoing significant residential growth. During the sixth housing cycle, the city anticipates the construction of 2,834 new housing units, of which 587 are projected for very low- and low-income households, and 128 for moderate-income households.

Rohnert Park’s inclusionary housing policies require that all new developments of 50 units or more include 15% affordable housing units. Generally, the city requires market-rate developers to donate land to non-profit housing developers, who then secure financing (e.g., LIHTCs) for affordable unit construction. These completed projects are typically owned and managed by the non-profit entities.

Development agreements may stipulate various arrangements for land dedication and financing, sometimes requiring certificates of occupancy for affordable units before market-rate construction can proceed. For instance, in the Willow Glen subdivision, the developer partnered with Burbank Housing for the construction of 38 low-income rental units, sharing construction and financing responsibilities, and also built affordable duet units sold via the Sonoma Land Trust.

State Funding: In August 2024, Rohnert Park secured $670,000 through the state’s Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP). These funds are designated for predevelopment activities for affordable housing units in downtown Rohnert Park.

Density Bonus: Density bonus programs, mandated by California law, incentivize developers to include affordable units by permitting increased project density beyond standard zoning regulations.

While Rohnert Park currently has a density bonus program, the city is conducting a feasibility study for a Supplemental Density Bonus Program. This study will examine provisions such as deeper affordability levels, a higher proportion of affordable units, units for individuals exiting homelessness, and universal design standards. The study is slated for completion by July 2026, with recommendations to be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council by year-end 2026, potentially leading to municipal code adoption within six months thereafter.

Essential Housing Bond Financing: Rohnert Park is a member of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). CSCDA administers the Workforce Housing Program, issuing tax-exempt governmental purpose bonds to 16 https://ballotpedia.org/Healdsburg,_California,_Hotel_Tax_Adjustment,_Measure_S_(November_2016) Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

acquire existing market-rate apartment buildings and convert them to rent-restricted housing for lower- and moderate-income households. The city has authorized the JPA to issue approximately $191,264,100 in bonds. This entails foregoing an estimated $337,346 in annual property tax revenue and committing staff resources (200 hours for program establishment and 200 hours per acquisition project). This initiative is projected to deliver at least 222 affordable housing units (99 very-lowincome, 57 low-income, 66 moderate-income). The city is also committed to a 2027 evaluation of housing production, with provisions for designating additional sites if RHNA obligations are not met.

4. Leadership and Community Involvement
Leadership Dynamics: For the purposes of this analysis, leadership encompasses the city councils and dedicated housing staff. A salient finding is the recognition by leadership in both municipalities that sustainable community development is untenable if it displaces the working-class populations— including farmworkers, caregivers, teachers, and service workers—who form the socio-economic bedrock of the region. City councils in both Healdsburg and Rohnert Park have demonstrated a consistent alignment on the concept of affordable housing as a core, nonpartisan community priority, thus creating a political foundation conducive to pursuing ambitious initiatives. This commitment is manifested through strategic planning, funding allocations, and policy reforms, supported by knowledgeable and empowered staff.

The collaboration between housing staff and city councils is instrumental to the success of the affordable housing effort. Their efforts are focused on strategic planning, developing regulatory frameworks, resource allocation, and community engagement.

Healdsburg: Structured Collaboration
Recently, the Healdsburg City Council approved the establishment of a formal Housing Department and authorized a new position dedicated to implementing its housing strategy. Key collaborative activities include:
• Strategic Planning: Housing staff and the City Council collaboratively develop affordable housing targets, considering market conditions, infrastructure capacity, community service needs, and resource availability.
• Policy Development and Implementation: The City Council enacts ordinances such as inclusionary zoning policies, while housing staff ensure effective implementation and monitor ongoing compliance.
• Resource Allocation: The City Council actively engages in generating financial resources and supports viable affordable housing initiatives.
• Public-Private Partnerships: Housing staff engage with developers and non-profit organizations to leverage resources and expertise, with City Council support in negotiating agreements aligned with affordable housing objectives.

Rohnert Park: Integrated Policy-Making
Rohnert Park’s collaborative approach involves:
• Collaborative Policy-Making: The City Council and housing staff jointly create and refine policies, such as density bonuses and streamlined approval processes, to facilitate affordable housing development, and continually review policies to reflect evolving needs.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

• Project Evaluation and Approval: Housing staff evaluate housing proposals for viability and goal alignment, referring meritorious projects to the City Council for review, amendment, or approval, ensuring conformity with community priorities.
• Incentive Programs: Housing staff design, implement, and manage incentive programs (e.g., reduced fees, infrastructure support), which, upon Council approval, encourage development. • Regular Reporting and Assessment: Housing staff monitor projects and provide ongoing updates to the City Council on successes and failures, ensuring policies remain current. • Public Engagement Initiatives: Both entities prioritize public involvement through transparent communication and public hearings, fostering a collaborative environment.

This close partnership between municipal staff and elected officials is essential for crafting and implementing effective, integrated, and well-supported affordable housing strategies.

5. Community Involvement and the "Community Will"
While legally mandated community review is a component of every proposed housing project, the successful realization of affordable housing objectives usually hinges on a proactive "community will." This implies a recognized and enthusiastically embraced need for housing by community stakeholders, driven by motivations ranging from expanding the tax base to providing housing for essential service workers. The Spanish term "chispa," or "spark," aptly describes a driving force observed in both Healdsburg and Rohnert Park, crucial for fostering a proactive, "yes in my backyard" (YIMBY) stance.

Healdsburg: Catalyzing Engagement
Healdsburg’s increasing affluence has exacerbated the problem of housing affordability for longterm residents, families, and service industry workers, a situation compounded by state-mandated housing goals. The "spark" in Healdsburg was significantly fanned by the Housing Element Working Group (HEWG), a diverse nine-person body including representatives from the business community, individuals with lived experience of homelessness, non-profits, renters, the planning commission, faith-based organizations, and the community at large. The HEWG, in conjunction with housing staff, developed the roadmap for the 6th cycle Housing Element. Through their analysis and community surveys, the Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) was identified as the primary governmental constraint on development, while high construction costs (land, materials, labor) were noted as the principal non-governmental constraints.

The following from Healdsburg’s “Housing Element” and from the Grand Jury’s interviews illustrate the city's outreach, philosophy, and culture:
• A community outreach interview captured the sentiment: “Aquí en Healdsburg la renta es muy caro... Tres o más personas tienen que vivir juntos para cubrir la renta.” (English: "Here in Healdsburg, the rent is very expensive... Three or more people need to live together to cover the rent.")
• A comment by an HEWG member highlighted the city's partnership with Reach for Home, a non-profit addressing homelessness, emphasizing a personalized approach: "In Healdsburg, they know those experiencing homelessness by name, not numbers..." • Another HEWG committee member underscored the necessity of trust between the community, local legislature, and developers, alongside a clear, transparent plan for housing development.

This holistic, community-centric approach has yielded significant outcomes:

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

• Increasing deed-restricted affordable housing to over 10% of total housing stock in eight years. • Passage of Measure S, allocating 2% of TOT revenue (approx. $1.5M annually) to affordable housing.
• Passage of Measures P and H, allowing middle-income deed-restricted housing outside GMO constraints, allowing middle-income deed-restricted housing outside GMO constraints. • Negotiating workforce housing inclusion in hotel developments. • Preserving 39 units of older, lower rent housing (often referred to as naturally occurring) affordable housing and establishing 10 units for Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), a term used to combine long-term affordable housing with supportive services to help individuals, particularly those experiencing chronic homelessness, achieve housing stability. • Planning 168 affordable units on two city-owned sites. • Developing a Navigation Center providing homes for 11 formerly homeless families/individuals. • Securing over $7 million in Project Homekey17 funding for an interim housing program. • Establishing a formal Housing Department and new staff positions.

Healdsburg’s coordinated efforts have exceeded fifth Cycle Housing Element goals and established a foundation for the sixth Cycle, driven by this "spark" of community will.

Rohnert Park: Proactive Outreach and Planning
Rohnert Park has emerged as a regional leader, surpassing its fifth Cycle Housing Element goal (1,794 units) and positioning itself to exceed the sixth cycle requirement (1,580 units, 2023–2031).

This achievement reflects a strong community commitment. Rohnert Park's demographic—younger and less affluent than the county average—faces significant rental cost burdens. In response, City leadership, including a supportive mayor and city council, empowered housing staff to conduct broad public engagement and community-based planning.

Key outreach elements included:
• A Housing Element18 webpage attracting over 1,200 email subscribers. • A bilingual housing needs survey (Dec 2021) with 1,344 responses. • Five public workshops engaging over 30 stakeholders, including the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.
• Citywide newsletter distribution and targeted social media campaigns. • Door-to-door outreach in Spanish-speaking communities, distributing over 1,000 door hangers with multilingual QR-coded survey access.
• Repeated outreach in 2023 for feedback on the draft Housing Element. • A community-wide survey offering incentives generated over 1,500 comments, indicating strong public interest in addressing affordability, homelessness, and infrastructure related to new housing.
17 www.hcd.ca.gov\grants-and-funding\homekey 18 http://www.rpcity.org/city_hall/departments/development_services/housing/housing_element_2023-2031x Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

This consistent, multilingual, and inclusive approach fostered an informed and supportive resident base, reflecting a proactive "community will" instrumental in advancing Rohnert Park's affordable housing objectives.

CONCLUSION
The experiences of Healdsburg and Rohnert Park demonstrate that addressing affordable housing challenges requires a synergistic combination of adaptive growth management, strategic land acquisition, streamlined entitlement processes, diverse financing mechanisms, and robust leadership, along with deep community involvement. While specific instruments and approaches may vary based on local contexts, the underlying commitment to proactive planning and collaborative engagement appears to be a crucial determinant of success in expanding affordable housing opportunities. The Grand Jury concluded that the key ingredient of this collaborative engagement is community will, which exists within Healdsburg and Rohnert Park and should be fostered throughout the county.

The Grand Jury believes that cities, unincorporated municipalities and the County can learn from each other by meeting periodically, sharing experiences and identifying best practices. Rohnert Park and Healdsburg housing staff, community members and city leadership generously shared their successes and challenges with the Civil Grand Jury, and we strongly encourage the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, housing staff, city mayors, city council members, grassroots representatives, and housing advocates throughout Sonoma County to meet with and learn from each other.

FINDINGS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:

F1. Adaptive growth management is crucial but faces limits: Both Healdsburg (Measures P & H) and Rohnert Park (exemptions for affordable housing within its GMO) have actively adapted their growth management ordinances to facilitate affordable housing. However, community concerns regarding local character and a perceived lack of safeguards can limit further expansions, as evidenced by the failure of Healdsburg's Measure O.

F2. Strategic use of public land is a key lever: Both municipalities used land banking (e.g., Healdsburg's 155 Dry Creek Road, Rohnert Park's 30-acre downtown parcel) and then went through the surplus property process to make sites available for affordable housing development.

F3. A diverse portfolio of financing mechanisms is employed: Cities do not rely on a single funding source. Healdsburg utilizes inclusionary housing, significant state grants (e.g., $21.1 million AHSC for Saggio Hills), and dedicated local revenue from special taxes (Measure S TOT).

Rohnert Park also uses inclusionary housing, state pro-housing incentives, density bonuses, and innovative bond financing through the CSCDA Workforce Housing Program.

F4. Streamlined entitlement processes expedite development: Both Healdsburg (no-cost preapplication meetings, fast-tracking) and Rohnert Park (optional pre-application meetings, structured review cycles) have implemented measures to streamline their entitlement processes, offering early feedback and utilizing Development Agreements (DAs) to provide certainty for developers of affordable housing.

F5. Aligned political leadership and empowered staff are foundational: The success in both cities is partly attributed to city councils that view affordable housing as a nonpartisan, moral imperative, coupled with knowledgeable and empowered housing staff who can effectively implement Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

strategic plans, policy reforms, and resource allocation. Healdsburg even established a dedicated Housing Department.

F6. Proactive and inclusive community engagement cultivates "community will": Both cities demonstrated that extensive, tailored community involvement—such as Healdsburg's diverse Housing Element Working Group (HEWG) and Rohnert Park's broad, multilingual outreach and surveys—is essential for building public understanding and the "community will" (or "chispa") needed to support and overcome opposition to affordable housing projects.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:

R1. By January 30, 2026, Healdsburg and Rohnert Park will each create an ongoing community engagement plan, which includes multilingual community outreach and education, surveys, public workshops, and dedicated working groups.

R2. By January 30, 2026, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and each of the nine city councils will agree to create an ongoing Affordable Housing Collaborative, which includes jurisdiction leaders, community members, grass roots organizations and housing advocates, who will share both positive and negative experiences and identify “best practices.”

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
• F1-6. City Councils of Healdsburg and Rohnert Park.
• R1. City Councils of Healdsburg and Rohnert Park.
• R2. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors

INVITED RESPONSES
• R2: Mayor, Cloverdale; Mayor, Cotati; Mayor, Petaluma; Mayor, Santa Rosa; Mayor, Sebastopol; Mayor, Sonoma.

The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that their comments and responses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
City of Healdsburg. (c. 2023). City of Healdsburg [6th Cycle] Housing Element. Healdsburg, CA: City of Healdsburg, Planning Department.

City of Healdsburg. (Various Years). Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) (Healdsburg Municipal Code Title 18, Appendix A, as amended by Measure M (2000), Measure P (2018), Measure H (2020). Healdsburg, CA: City of Healdsburg.

City of Healdsburg. (2018). Measure S: Transient Occupancy Tax Increase for Affordable Housing. Healdsburg, CA: City of Healdsburg.

City of Rohnert Park. (c. 2023). City of Rohnert Park [6th Cycle] Housing Element. Rohnert Park, CA: City of Rohnert Park, Development Services Department.

City of Rohnert Park. (2000). Measure N: Urban Growth Boundaries Act. Rohnert Park, CA: City of Rohnert Park.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

City of Rohnert Park. (2001). Growth Management Ordinance (#667). Rohnert Park, CA: City of Rohnert Park.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (Various Years). Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program Guidelines. Sacramento, CA: HCD.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (Various Years). Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP) Guidelines. Sacramento, CA: HCD.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (Various Years). Surplus Land Act (Government Code sections 54220-54234) - Guidelines and Notices. Sacramento, CA: HCD.

California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA). (Various Years). Workforce Housing Program Information/Materials. Walnut Creek, CA: CSCDA.

Generation Housing (2024). “State of Housing in Sonoma County” Interviews conducted by Sonoma County Grand Jury. (c. 2023-2024). With Healdsburg City officials, housing staff, HEWG members, and other community stakeholders.

State of California. California Government Code. Sections relevant to Housing Elements (e.g., Article 10.6, § 65580 et seq.), Density Bonus Law (e.g., § 65915 et seq.), and other housing legislation mentioned (SB 9, SB 35, SB 330, AB 2162, Government Code Section 65583.1(c)).

Sonoma County Civic Grand Jury (2022-2023). “Affordable Housing: Past, Present, and Future” Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury.

APPENDIX
Income Limits for Affordable Housing in Sonoma County (2025)19 There are multiple definitions of low-income limits for affordable housing. The above link provides charts for state programs and for federal programs for Sonoma County. All limits are based on the percentage of Area Median Income and Household size. The charts below provide income limits and rent limits for both state and federal programs.

State and Local ProgramsIncome Limits*
The income limits below apply to the following programs: Sonoma County Density Bonus, Sonoma County Second Dwelling Unit, County Fund for Housing, California Redevelopment Law These Income Limits apply only to Sonoma County Community Development Commission assisted units.

They are not to be used as a guide for programs regulated by any agency other than the Sonoma County Community Development Commission. Please contact staff with any questions or concerns.

These Income Limits do not apply to CDBG, HOME or NSP restricted units. Please refer to separate schedule for these units which are regulated by federal income limits set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Effective June 1, 2025
19 https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/incomelimits#local
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

PERSONS IN

HOUSEHOLD
(15% AREA
MEDIAN

INCOME)

ACUTELY
LOW
INCOME

EXTREMELY

LOW INCOME
(50% AREA
MEDIAN

INCOME)

VERY LOW
INCOME
60% AREA
MEDIAN
INCOME
(80% AREA
MEDIAN

INCOME)
LOW
INCOME
(100%
AREA
MEDIAN

INCOME)
MEDIAN
INCOME
(120%
AREA
MEDIAN

INCOME)

MODERATE
INCOME
1 $13,850 $31,750 $52,850 $63,420 $84,650 $92,400 $110,900 2 15,850 36,250 60,400 72,480 96,750 105,600 126,700
3 17,800 40,800 67,950 81,540 108,850 118,800 142,550
4 19,800 45,300 75,500 90,600 120,900 132,000 158,400
5 21,400 48,950 81,550 97,860 130,600 142,550 171,050
6 22,950 52,550 87,600 105,120 140,250 153,100 183,750
7 24,550 56,200 93,650 112,380 149,950 163,700 196,400
8 26,150 59,800 99,700 119,640 159,600 174,250 209,100
*The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has made its final decision to implement a new State Income Limit Hold Harmless (HH) Policy beginning 2013.

Maximum Rent Limits : Uses Formula in California Health & Safety Code 50052.5 & 50053

UNIT SIZE PERSONS

IN HOUSEHOLD
(MINIMUM –

MAXIMUM)

EXTREMELY

LOW INCOME

RENT LIMIT

VERY LOW

INCOME RENT
LIMIT

LOW INCOME

RENT LIMIT
Low Income
80% Rent Limit
Studio (1-2) $794 $1,321 $1,586 $2,116
1 Bedroom (1-4) 906 1,510 1,812 2,419
2 Bedroom (2-6) 1020 1,699 2,039 2,721
3 Bedroom (3-8) 1133 1,888 2,265 3,023
4 Bedroom (4-10) 1224 2,039 2,447 3,265
Utility Allowance: Subtract from the maximum rent the approved utility allowance for any utilities that the tenant pays in addition to the rent. Confirm the appropriate utility allowance with the Sonoma County Community Development Commission.

Assumption: The rents are computed based on the income limits for an assumed household size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one person. For example, the rents for a three-bedroom unit are based upon the income limits for a four-person household.

Federal Programs Income Limits: The income limits below apply to the following programs: Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). These income limits apply only to Sonoma County Community Development Commission assisted units. They are NOT to be used as a guide for programs regulated by any agency other than the Sonoma County Community Development Commission.

These Income Limits do not apply to state or locally regulated programs (Density Bonus, Second Dwelling Unit, County Fund for Housing, California Redevelopment Law). These units are regulated by state income limits set annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Area Median Income for a 4-person household: $128,100

PERSONS IN

HOUSEHOLD
30% AREA
MEDIAN
INCOME

VERY LOW
INCOME (50%

AMI) HOME LOW
60% AREA

MEDIAN INCOME

LOW INCOME
(80% AMI) HOME
HIGH
1 $31,750 $52,850 $63,420 $84,650
2 36,250 60,400 72,480 96,750
3 40,800 67,950 81,540 108,850
4 45,300 75,500 90,600 120,900
5 48,950 81,550 97,860 130,600
6 52,550 87,600 105,120 140,250
7 56,200 93,650 112,380 149,950
8 59,800 99,700 119,640 159,600
Rent Limits: Maximum rent limits for all HOME, CDBG, and NSP Units as set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development RENT LEVEL STUDIO 1

BEDROOM
2 BEDROOM
3 BEDROOM
4 BEDROOM
HOME Low (Very Low-Income -
50%) $1,321 $1,415 $1,698 $1,963 $2,190
HOME High (Low Income - 65%) $1,699 $1,821 $2,187 $2,519 $2,790 Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County’s Surplus Property Disposal
Housekeeping takes time but pays long-term benefits

SUMMARY
What happens to county assets when they reach the end of their useful life or are no longer needed? Is office furniture, computer equipment, and other items given away or discarded? What about vehicles used by county employees? What happens to vacant land and unused or under-used buildings? Is Sonoma County effectively mGGanaging these assets? The purpose of this investigation was to answer these questions and evaluate the effectiveness of the County’s process for handling surplus assets. Specifically, the investigation sought to determine:
• What is the Sonoma County’s process for declaring and disposing of surplus property? • Is the process sufficient to ensure the orderly disposal of surplus property? The Grand Jury found that the county has a well-organized process for disposing of rolling stock, machinery, and equipment, including office furniture and computer equipment but the county does not systematically manage its land portfolio.

The county lacks a structured process for identifying and managing surplus land and buildings. But selling surplus land assets has two key benefits:

1. Returning government land to the private sector generates property tax revenue while government lands are exempt from taxation.

2. Putting unused land to productive use benefits the community, unlike vacant property that provides no value.

The Grand Jury found that the county should take steps to manage its land holdings and share information with the public about public lands available for other uses.

BACKGROUND
The investigation considers the following types of property:

Rolling Stock – Vehicles and wheeled equipment
Other Assets – Office furniture, machinery, and equipment Land and Buildings – Real Estate
The County of Sonoma holds significant capital assets, with annual capital expenditures about $100 million annually. As of the audit ending June 30, 2023, the county reported over $1.5 billion in governmental capital assets. While many of these assets are infrastructure-related—such as roads and right-of-way assets—the county still maintains a substantial inventory of land, buildings, and machinery. All these assets are managed by different divisions within the Sonoma County Public Infrastructure Department.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

County of Sonoma
Specific Capital Assets as of 6/30/2024
(ALLAMOUNT IN MILLIONS,NET OFDEPRECIATION)
Governmental
Land $357
Buildings and
Improvements $261
Machinery and
Equipment $ 38
Total $656
Source: Financial Audit Ending June 30, 2024
Some of these assets may be worth much more than that shown on the county’s financials because the assets are valued at historical cost. Land and buildings that have been held by the county for a long time usually are worth much more than that shown on the county’s audit.

Disposal of Surplus Personal Property (Vehicles, Equipment, Furnishings) The disposal of surplus personal property by counties is governed by California Government Code §§ 25500–25510.

Key Provisions:

1. Authority: The county's board of supervisors may authorize the sale or disposal of personal property that is no longer needed for public use.

2. Methods of Disposal: Surplus personal property may be disposed of through:
a. Public auction.
b. Sealed bids.
c. Negotiated sales.

3. Unclaimed Property: For unclaimed personal property, counties may adopt regulations for its care, restitution, sale, or destruction, provided they:
a. Hold the property for at least three months.
b. Provide notice of sale at least five days before the sale.

Sonoma County Ordinances regarding Surplus Property and Disposal Like all counties in California, Sonoma County has its own local ordinances in the Municipal Code that define the county’s rules for identifying and disposing of surplus property. Chapter 2, Article 5, Division 1, Section 2-59 says: Any item no longer required by any county department shall be declared surplus and transferred to the custody of the purchasing agent. If the purchasing agent finds that no other county department has need for such an item it shall be declared surplus. Any such item or group of related items may then be advertised and sold or otherwise disposed of by the purchasing agent, by whatever method and procedure will return the greatest value to the county.

Obsolete items of no value may be destroyed or discarded.” Article 15 details the procedures for selling surplus property other than real property (land and buildings).

Unlike other county assets, land has additional requirements that complicate its management. The principal law governing land sales is the Surplus Land Act (SLA).

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

The Surplus Land Act (SLA) (Gov. Code §§ 54220–54234) was enacted in 1968 to ensure that publicly owned land no longer needed for government purposes is offered first for public use and affordable housing, rather than private commercial development. Under the original law, local agencies must declare a parcel “surplus” (or “exempt surplus” in certain cases) before disposing of it, and notify housing, school and park districts that the land is available. The Act prioritized parks, schools and “housing development” when surplus land is sold or leased.

Over time, California’s acute housing shortage spurred stronger SLA requirements. In 2014 the law was amended (AB 2135) to define affordable housing proposals more clearly (for example, requiring at least 15% affordable units) and to streamline negotiations. A more sweeping overhaul came in 2019 with AB 1486 specifying that agencies must negotiate exclusively with the affordable-housing proposal offering the most units and deepest affordability and requiring local agencies to inventory all publicly owned land and report it to the state.

Assembly Bill 1486 significantly amended the SLA to enhance transparency and enforce compliance. Key provisions included:
• Requiring agencies to notify the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) before disposing of surplus land.
• Mandating a 60-day negotiation period with interested affordable housing developers. • Defining exactly what counts as surplus (any agency-owned land not needed for government operations)
• Imposing penalties for non-compliance, including fines up to 30% of the land’s sale price.

These amendments also gave the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) greater oversight. HCD now reviews all surplus-land notices, collects data in housing element reports, and can (in conjunction with the Attorney General) impose penalties for noncompliance. In practice, HCD’s 2021–2024 guidelines explain that agencies must formally declare surplus land at a public meeting, send a Notice of Availability to HCD and other public entities, and negotiate for 60– 90 days with any interested affordable-housing developer before selling or leasing the land.

Most recently, the Legislature passed SB 240 (2023) to update rules for state surplus land (disposals by the Department of General Services). SB 240 makes development of surplus state land for affordable housing a by-right, CEQA-exempt project, removing environmental-review hurdles. It also adds transitional housing for formerly incarcerated individuals as an eligible prioritized use, on par with affordable housing and parks.

To recap, key SLA provisions:
• Local agencies must formally declare land as surplus at a regular public meeting. • Agencies must submit an annual surplus property report to HCD. • HCD maintains a list of developers (“sponsors”) interested in purchasing or leasing surplus property for affordable housing.
• If an agency fails to sell or lease surplus property to a sponsor, it must attach an Affordable Housing Covenant requiring that 15% of units in any project of 10 or more units be affordable. • Projects on surplus land must pay prevailing wage, the minimum hourly rate of wages and benefits that contractors must pay workers on public works projects, set by the California Department of Industrial Relations.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

The SLA process is complex and requires knowledgeable staff with strong working relationships with HCD to navigate this law. Sometimes it can cause delays due to procedural requirements, but it is the law of the land.

METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury conducted interviews with management staff within the Public Infrastructure Division who might deal with above mentioned property as well as real estate professionals from Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Sonoma County CDC and non-profit affordable housing developers.

DOCUMENTS
The following types of documents were obtained:
• Internal documents showing processes for surplus property disposal • Board of Supervisor reports
• Documents summarizing the Surplus Lands Act
• Customized reports regarding surplus property
Additionally, the Grand Jury reviewed a County Geographical Information System (GIS) that shows all county-owned/leased land parcels and structures. This system’s information is not available to the public.

DISCUSSION
Each year, the County of Sonoma spends tens of millions of dollars on real estate, rolling stock (vehicles and equipment), and many smaller assets. Over time, much of this property is no longer needed by the county and should be disposed of. However, this property often retains residual value.

Therefore, the orderly disposal of surplus property not only returns financial resources to the county but also provides useful assets to other parties.

Fleet Management and Funding
The county owns approximately 1,600 vehicles (light, medium, and heavy) with a combined replacement value of approximately $68 million. The average lifespan of these vehicles is eight years, though heavy equipment may have a significantly longer useful life.

Vehicles are purchased, maintained, and disposed of by the Fleet Management Division.

Fleet Management oversees the Accumulated Capital Outlay (ACO) Fund, which funds vehicle replacement. Each county department “leases” vehicles from Fleet Management and pays a monthly fee into the ACO. When a vehicle needs to be replaced, the ACO fund generally covers the cost— unless the replacement cost exceeds the accumulated funds for that vehicle.

Surplus vehicles are auctioned through First Capitol Auction, a company specializing in government vehicle sales. Vehicles typically sell at or above Blue Book value. Proceeds from the auctions are returned to the ACO fund to support future vehicle purchases. The process appeared orderly, efficient and effective.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Surplus Property Statistics
Rolling Stock (Wheeled Vehicles and Equipment) Disposal Proceeds 2024 (to Sept.
2024)
2023 2022 2021
$598,163 $649,376 $891,708 $1,032,751
Other Assets (Machinery and Equipment Except for Rolling Stock) These government assets represent the smallest dollar value of the assets reviewed by the Grand Jury.

County departments are required to declare property surplus and release it to the Purchasing Division. The Purchasing Division inventories the surplus property and determines whether another county department can reuse it. If no internal use is found, the property is listed for public auction through a different entity than used for vehicle sales, www.publicsurplus.com, a company used by many public agencies in California.

Surplus property is sold “as is.” Most items are in poor condition and do not command high prices.

In 2023, at least 10 county departments released surplus property to the Purchasing Division for disposal. The Grand Jury noted that except for the Information Services Division, the other departments did not provide a great deal of surplus to Purchasing. The following chart, Surplus Property Statistics, shows the number of items sold by fiscal year and the amount of money recovered:

Surplus Property Statistics
Equipment and Machinery Except for Rolling Stock
Fiscal Year Public Sale County Reuse Non-profit use Total $ # of Lots $ # of Lots $ # of Lots $ # of Lots
21/22 $50,200 247 $28,100 20 $8,300 5 $86,000 272
22/23 $26,300 593 $97,500 16 $57,900 29 $181,700 638
23/24 $54,600 545 $54,100 24 $39,700 9 $148,400 578
Land, Buildings, and Improvements
At present, Sonoma County has no land designated as surplus. In recent years, the county has disposed of relatively few land assets. One notable sale, the Chanate property, the former site of the Norton Behavioral Health Center on Chanate Road, took seven years to complete. However now, all California local governments must follow the Surplus Land Act.

The county does not have a process for reviewing county-owned properties to determine whether they are fully used or should be considered for surplus designation. Some of the insights gained by the Grand Jury were:
• The Real Estate Division responds to requests from departments for real estate transactions but does not initiate actions on real property.
• County departments rarely initiate a process requesting that land assigned to the department be considered for other use, mainly due to the fact that departments are not in the land management business.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

• The county maintains a GIS system showing all properties and structures, but the system does not reflect a property’s current use, nor is it available to the public. • County staff do not regularly review properties using the GIS system, and the system does not provide enough information to make informed decisions about property use. • The Grand Jury reviewed 20 of the largest properties with structures and needed county staff assistance to interpret the GIS data. They found no land that seemed ripe for alternative uses. • The Real Estate Division does not have expertise in affordable housing or working with the State Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department. Sonoma Community Development Commission (CDC) and Permit Sonoma are the county entities most knowledgeable concerning affordable housing.

Comparison to Santa Rosa: The City of Santa Rosa has developed a process for reviewing its land assets and making them available for sale. The Real Estate Services Division provides centralized real estate services to city departments. Staff regularly review city-owned properties and determine whether they should be declared surplus. Santa Rosa staff have strong relationships with HCD and experience with the SLA process. Santa Rosa maintains a website, "City-Owned Surplus Land," connected to HCD, allowing the public to see available properties.

CONCLUSIONS
• The jury was impressed by the Fleet Division’s comprehensive approach to vehicle management. • The management of other assets (non-vehicle and non-real estate property) had low dollar value and the disposal process appeared adequate.
• No single department is tasked or has sufficient expertise to evaluate the best use of the county’s real estate assets.
• The Surplus Land Act complicates the sale of government property and requires specific expertise to navigate the law.
• Information about the county’s most valuable assets (land and buildings) is not readily available to the public.

COMMENDATION
The Grand Jury found that the County of Sonoma’s Fleet Operation efficiently and cost effectively disposes of the County’s rolling stock, earning the county substantial revenue each year.

FINDINGS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:

F1. All but Information Services uses the Purchasing Division’s surplus disposal process sparingly, suggesting that many potential assets are not being disposed of timely when they are no longer needed.

F2. The Real Estate Division is staffed as a service bureau; it does not actively pursue management of the county’s real estate assets. Rather, it acts on request by departments to buy, sell or lease land. If it does not have a request, it does not act.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

F3. No comprehensive list exists that classifies the county’s properties; the county does not know if it is managing its land assets to their best use.

F4. No single division is responsible for the disposal of the county's land assets. Appropriate disposal requires expertise in real estate, affordable housing and economic development.

Furthermore, no county entity is systemically evaluating land for its potential use for affordable housing or economic development.

F5. No online access is provided for public viewing of county properties. As a result, underutilized lands are not easily identified and pursued by the public.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:

R1. By December 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors will direct their Sonoma Public Infrastructure Agency to develop a list of all the county’s properties in three parts: properties which have a use or restriction precluding it from other uses; properties currently full utilized; and, properties potentially available for reuse now or in the near future.

R2. By June 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors will direct County Executive to form a multidisciplinary team with expertise in real estate, affordable housing and economic development to review underused land assets for potential reuse or sale.

R3. By December 1, 2026, after the county develops a plan to evaluate properties, the Board of Supervisors will designate some periodic land review, such as every three to five years because land use changes and properties once needed may no longer be needed in the future.

R4. By December 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors will direct County GIS to make the Sonoma County Surplus Property map publicly available.

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
• Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (Findings F1-F4, R1, R2, R3, R4)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Reference for Vehicle Disposals: First Capitol Auction, www.bayareaautoauctions.com/listings/First-Capitol-Auction-Inc • Reference for Other Property Disposals: Public Surplus, www.publicsurplus.com • Updated Surplus Land Act Guidelines, California Department of Housing (HCD), August 2024. • “Chanate Campus Sale”, Board of Supervisors’ Meeting, November 16, 2021, Item #67A. • “Surplus Land Act Needs a Reality Check for Rural Parcels”, Daily Journal, April 25, 2025 Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Responses to the 2023-2024
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Reports
Providing Continuity by Following Through on Previous Investigations The 2024-2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury has reviewed the responses to the investigations and recommendations made by the 2023-2024 Grand Jury. The 2023-2024 Grand Jury issued five investigative reports. This summary addresses the responses from the responsible entities named in those reports. Although respondents did not adopt all Recommendations, their responses do comply with the requirements of the Penal Code, except where noted.

BACKGROUND
The Civil Grand Jury system in California exists to promote effective and efficient local government.

The Penal Code gives the Grand Jury broad investigative powers to provide oversight to county and city governments and special districts within Sonoma County, bringing positive change in the best interest of all residents.

Each year the Grand Jury investigates local government institutions and issues reports containing the results of these investigations. Within each report are Findings that lead to Recommendations for improvement. Governing bodies and officials are required to respond to the Findings and Recommendations in a form and within a timeframe set out by the Penal Code. Boards are required to respond within 90 days of the release of a grand jury’s report; elected officials are required to respond within 60 days, (Penal Code 933.05) with a copy to their governing board.

Succeeding grand juries review these responses and determine whether they meet the requirements of the Penal Code. This review establishes continuity from one grand jury to the next. The seated grand jury may evaluate responses for adequacy and determine whether appropriate steps have been taken to implement Recommendations.

METHODOLOGY: The Grand Jury evaluated responses for compliance using the governing sections of Penal Code 933.05.

DISCUSSION
According to the Penal Code, governing bodies and officials are required to respond to Findings in Grand Jury reports and the respondent shall indicate one of the following:

The respondent agrees with the Finding.

The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the Finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.

According to the Penal Code, as to each Grand Jury Recommendation, the respondent shall report one of the following actions:

The Recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implementation action.

The Recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.

The Recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

The Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

CONCLUSION
The 2023-2024 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury concluded that the responses to the 2023-2024 Grand Jury Recommendations are in compliance with the Penal Code. In addition, the 2024-2025 Grand Jury has included its observations on those responses.

A copy of the full 2023-2024 Grand Jury report and responses received can be located within the County of Sonoma, Superior Court of California website
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

2023-2024 Grand Jury Response Summary Chart
Election Integrity in Sonoma County
Respondents: BOS: Sonoma County Board of Supervisors ROV: Registrar Of Voters FINDINGS RESPONSES 2024-25 GJ OBSERVATIONS
Findings F1-F8 BOS
ROV
I (we) agree with the findings numbered:

F1-F8 I (we) agree with the findings
numbered: Fl-F8.

The Grand Jury
acknowledgesthat all
Findings have been
accepted asreported.

RECOMMENDATIONS & RESPONSES 2024-25 GJ OBSERVATIONS
R1 By September 1, 2024, ROV develop and begin execution of an ongoing process designed to ensure that internal procedural documentation is created and kept current.

ROV Response: “This recommendation is in the process of being implemented with estimated completion by September 1, 2024. The Registrar of Voters is working on a formal policy for documenting internal procedures and training multiple staff members, as well as updating, reviewing, and utilizing existing training manuals.” ROV UPDATE: “The office policy has been implemented but is not something we would post on our website. There will be a lot of documentation being done this year, as we do not have a major election, and are working on documenting internal processes.”
The Grand Jury
acknowledgesthat this
Recommendation has been
partially implemented but
will also need
implementation in the
future.

R2 By June 30, 2025, the Board of Supervisors develop and approve a long-term plan to provide ROV with a facility that better accommodates space and physical security requirements.

BOS Response: “This recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future.

Sonoma Public infrastructure and Registrar of Voters are currently coordinating and seeking a location for a new facility for the ROV. Funding allocations will be determined during Budget Hearings in June 2025 if a site has been identified.”
ROV Update: “We worked with the County Safety and Risk Management teams, as well as County Emergency Management, and local law enforcement to continue enhancing safety measures for the November election. There was a heightened law enforcement presence in the community, as well as Emergency Management staff in the RoV office to coordinate with any issues. We have some grant funding that we have been informed will be available soon, and we are working on planning for that. We continue to look for a new facility that would have the ability to implement more safety enhancements, which are limited in our current building.” BOS Update: “According to an update received in March of 2025, no new site has been identified.” The Grand Jury
acknowledgesthat this
Recommendation will be
implemented in the future.

As of March 2025, the
Board of Supervisors
authorized the Clerk of BOS
to publish an intent to
purchase property located
at 3800 and 3850
Brickway Blvd, Santa Rosa.

R3a By August 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors and ROV develop and implement a plan for enhancing existing ROV security measures and developing new security measures based on recurring threat assessments and recommendations by qualified authorities.

The Grand Jury
acknowledgesthat this
recommendation has been
implemented.

ROV Response: “This recommendation is in the process of implementation. The Registrar of Voters has been improving and enhancing security measures based on assessments and recommendations since receiving them and will continue to do so as funding and capacity allows…security cameras added to more areas of the office… Physical security has been enhanced… ROV has been working closer with the Department of Emergency Management and local law enforcement to increase communication and planning for elections.” ROV Update: “We did implement some of the recommendations for the 2024 cycle, including Narcan being available, having detailed procedures for threats being reported from polling sites, waterfall quick references being available at all desks to cover emergency situations, and lockdown procedures being enhanced. We had a Sheriff Deputy on site for 2 days (expanded coverage), and poll workers were required to take a Workplace Violence Prevention and Reporting training. Some suggestions were unable to be implemented, such as formalizing a backup location in case of emergency.”
BOS Response: “Thisrecommendation isin the process of implementation. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Registrar of Voters' response.” R3b By July 31, 2024, ROV create and maintain a record of all incidents of abusive or threatening behavior to support future risk and threat assessment analysis.

ROV Response: “This recommendation has been implemented. The Registrar of Voters has created a tracking spreadsheet for staff and extra-help employees to log any instances of abusive or threatening behavior…and provided to the appropriate authorities”
The Grand Jury
acknowledgesthat this
Recommendation has been
implemented.

R 3c By July 31,2024, ROV evaluate all recommendations that resulted from its meeting with the Emergency Management Department and establish an implementation schedule for the recommendations it adopts.

The Grand Jury
acknowledgesthat this
Recommendation has been
implemented.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

ROV Response: “This recommendation is in the process of implementation. The Registrar of Voters has been working to evaluate recommendations and questions that arose from the table-top exercise and implement feasible solutions. The ROV will continue that process and develop a timeline for implementation of recommendations by the end of July.”
ROV Update: “We did implement some of the recommendations for the 2024 cycle, including Narcan being readily available, having detailed procedures for threats being reported from polling sites, waterfall quick references being available at all desks to cover emergency situations, and lockdown procedures being enhanced. We had a Sheriff Deputy on site for 2 days (expanded coverage), and poll workers were required to take a Workplace Violence Prevention and Reporting training. Some suggestions were unable to be implemented, such as formalizing a backup location in case of emergency.”
The Grand Jury
acknowledgesthat this
Recommendation has been
partially implemented but
will also need
implementation in the
future.

R4. By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors allocate resources for a project to create a publicly accessible Sonoma County Elections database to enable ready access to, and analysis of, past election results.

The Grand Jury
acknowledgesthat this
Recommendation has been
implemented.

ROV Response: ”This recommendation is in process and will continue to be implemented as funding is made available.

The Registrar of Voters entered into a contract… to take old election records and convert them into a searchable database for the public. …The first phase, covering years 2013-2020, should be accomplished early in 2024-2025 fiscal. Future work …will be accomplished as funding is allocated by the Board of Supervisors in the annual budget.”
BOS Response: “This recommendation is in process and will continue to be implemented as funding is available. The Registrar of Voters can allocate existing funding in future years for this project. If existing funding does not have capacity, then a program change request can be submitted through the Budget process. The Board of Supervisors will consider the program change request for a funding allocation during the annual Budget Hearings in the context of other budget requests.” Is Fire Safety a Priority in Sonoma County?
Respondent: BOS: Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
FINDINGS & RESPONSES 2024-25 GJ OBSERVATIONS
Finding F1: Sonoma County’s Fire Safety Ordinance permits “Same Practical Effect” mitigation within the State Responsibility Area that is inconsistent with the Grand Jury’s interpretation of the State Minimum Fire Safety Regulations.

Finding F2: Permit Sonoma is permitting development exceptions within the State Responsibility Area that are not congruent with the Grand Jury’s interpretation of the State Minimum Fire Safety Regulations.

BOS Response: F1 and F2: “We disagree wholly or in part with this Finding…The County agrees that it implements the State Minimum Fire Safety Regulations in a way that is incongruent with the Grand Jury’s interpretations. However, while the County thanks and commends the Grand Jury for diving deep into such a critical issue, the County maintains that the Grand Jury’s interpretations are incorrect because they are based on legal and factual inaccuracies. To address the Grand Jury’s findings, it is important to correct the historic legal and factual premises upon which the Findings are based. The entire response from County Counsel can be read at the website referenced at the bottom of this page.

Finding 3: Fire Safety mitigation approvals are considered by Permit Sonoma on a case-by-case basis during the permit application process but are not always publicly noticed or reviewed when issued.

BOS Response: “The County partially disagrees with this Finding. Permit applications fall into two general categories – ministerial and discretionary. Staff review ministerial applications, such as building permits, for compliance with standards or qualifications for same practical effect finding. Discretionary applications, including same practical effects determinations, are publicly noticed.” Finding 4: Citizens and first responder safety is properly considered during permit review and approval, and local firefighter leadership believe that Permit Sonoma is doing its job appropriately.

BOS Response: “The County agrees with this Finding.

RECOMMENDATIONS & RESPONSES 2024-25 GJ OBSERVATIONS
R1. By November 1, 2024, the Board of Supervisors will direct Permit Sonoma to publish an applicant’s guide to fire safety ingress and egress requirements and mitigation procedures for applications on roads that do not meet FSR requirements.

The Grand Jury
acknowledges that this
recommendation will be
implemented in the future.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

BOS Response:” Recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. Permit Sonoma updated its website links to PRC $ 4290 and Fire Safe Regulations. The website additionally has illustrations to assist applicants with complying with the County's Fire Safe Standards or the Fire Safe Regulations. Permit Sonoma has an application form to request an exception to standards which can be found on its website. The Board of Supervisors directs Permit Sonoma to publish additional materials related the Fire Safe Regulation's requirements and the forms and process for applying for an exception to standards.”
BOS Update: “In Progress; estimated Completion Date: After 03/31/2025” “Outcome: This is in process. The form that is used and submitted to BOF is that same prior to the GJ Report. We are adapting it to be Accessible and posted on the new Web Page as a single source page for the public to go to. This will not be completed till after the adoption process of the new LRA FHSZ Maps are released by CALFIRE, as it relates to the language in Title 14 for areas in the LRA VHFSZ. This will be included in the same regulatory exceptions process. …we will have a web site that will allow the public to know and respond before an exception is granted or denied, Exceptions will be tracked by permit type and all records and communications will be accessible from Permit Sonoma data base on the applicant’s records or application number.” R2 By November 1, 2024, the Board of Supervisors will direct Permit Sonoma to include administrative review of all exceptional fire safety mitigation plans to the list of permits needing approval by either Permit Sonoma Design Review Committee or Permit Sonoma Project Review Advisory Committee.

The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this Recommendation has
been implemented.

BOS Response: “The recommendation will not be implemented as written due to pending code amendments expected to be considered by the Board by December 7, 2024, that will eliminate the Design Review Committee and Project Review Advisory Committee to streamline the permitting process in compliance with State housing law. lnstead, the Director will provide direct review and approval of ministerial and discretionary Fire Marshal Same Practical Effect Determinations, before posting them within the department's permitting system. Approximately 15 determinations are made annually.

For discretionary permits with exceptions to standards, public notice is already provided prior to adoption and all application materials are available to the public upon request. When the discretionary permit requires a public hearing, application materials, including the exception to standards application, are posted online prior to the noticed public hearing. Annually, Permit Sonoma will post prominently on its website a summary of Same Practical Effect Determinations with individual determinations attached.” In March, 2025 the Board of
Supervisors amended the
County Code to include a
Zoning Administrator with
oversight of ministerial reviews
formerly undertaken by Design
and Project review boards and
shifted responsibility for public
discussion of fire safety
mitigation applications to the
Project Review board.

R3 By November 1, 2024, the Board of Supervisors will direct Permit Sonoma to meet and confer with all independent Fire Prevention agencies to review its mitigation and appeal procedures by February 1, 2025.

BOS Response: “Recommendation R3 has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future consistent with the timeline in the recommendation. The Board of Supervisors directs Permit Sonoma to meet and confer with the fire prevention agencies and solicit comments on its forms and procedures for applying for and reviewing exceptions to standards.”
BOS Update: “Completed 1/6/2025. When a request for Exception is applied for the County Fire Marshal is the approving authority based on the authority granted to by CalFire as the Inspection Authority. We will continue to consult with local Fire Districts when exceptions are applied. Appeals to exceptions will follow the county appeals process set by the county and Permit Sonoma as adopted.”
The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this Recommendation has
been implemented.

R4 By November 1, 2024, the Board of Supervisors will direct Permit Sonoma to identify and map all roads within the SRA that don't meet State FSR standards and publish that map on the County Department of Emergency Management website by February 28, 2025.

The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this recommendation will
be implemented in the future.

BOS Response: “Recommendation R4 has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future for public roads only. The Board of Supervisors directs Permit Sonoma to work with Sonoma Public Infrastructure and the Department of Emergency Management to identify and map public roads in the SRA and indicate whether they meet the standards of the Fire Safe Regulations. These maps will be made publicly available on the county's online mapping hub. Mapping private roads is not feasible because the County does not have legal access to those roads and tree coverage and aerial image limitations prohibit effective remote analysis.”
BOS Update: Status: “In progress; estimated Completion Date December 2025. This is a very large project, currently the county understands the public Road Network. This will require some time to develop into an online map for the public. We hope this can be completed before the end of the year with a draft map available in July 2025.”
Sonoma County Taxes & Spending
Respondents: ACTTC: Auditor, Controller, Treasurer, Tax Collector ROV: Registrar of Voters/Assessor BOS: Board of Supervisors

FINDINGS & RESPONSES
Finding 1 The total amount and source of tax collectionsis not published in a useful, publicly accessible format by any government entity.

ACTTC Response: “I (we) agree with the finding.”
Finding 2 The actual amount of money being spent to address public need is not published in a useful, publicly accessible format by any government entity.

BOS Response: “We disagree wholly or partially with this finding. The County Administrator’s Office and the Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector publish a range of useful information on spending to address public needs. A comprehensive, cross-governmental report is not provided by any entity and would not be feasible given the array of different agencies and services being provided, as well as the fact that many expenditures address multiple needs.”
Finding 3 The Sonoma County Office of Education publishes no report summarizing how much, in total, is being collected, spent, or borrowed to pay for public education in Sonoma County.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Finding 4 The County Auditor/Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector Citizens’ Report, a helpful document, doesn’t answer major questions about tax revenue or spending.

ACTTC Response: “I (we) agree with this finding.”
Finding 5 The County Auditor doesn’t have the resources needed to conduct performance audits throughout County government.

ACTTC Response: “We disagree wholly or in part with this finding. The County Auditor has resources to conduct some performance audits of County programs and departments. Audit engagements are prioritized and selected by the ACTTC through a risk assessment process.” BOS Response: “We disagree wholly or in part with this finding. The County Auditor has funds to conduct selected audits as determined by the elected Auditor.”
Finding 6 The County Assessor doesn’t have the resources needed to eliminate a significant assessment backlog. As a consequence, many taxpayers will get hit with significant back-dated property tax bills when this assessment backlog is cleared.

Finding 7 Sonoma County sales tax rates are among the highest in California.

ACTTC Response: “We disagree wholly or in part with this finding. According to information published by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Sonoma County is tied for 9th highest sales tax rate for California counties and no Sonoma County cities are in the top 90 sales tax rates for California.”
BOS Response: “We disagree wholly or in part with this finding. According to information published by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, last updated on 7/1/2024, sales taxes in unincorporated counties range from 7.25% to 10.25%. Sonoma County’s rate of 8.5% is in the middle of this range. Additionally, while some cities have higher tax rates due to voter approved tax measures, no city in Sonoma County has a tax rate in the top 90 cities in California.”
Finding 8 Citizen Oversight Committees are frequently inoperative, largely ineffective, and have no authority.

BOS Response: “We disagree wholly or in part with this finding. Citizen Oversight Committees provide valuable service reviewing expenditures for compliance with expenditure plans. The purpose of the unelected committees is to inform and advise relevant governing bodies and the public to ensure that agencies are held accountable.”
RECOMMENDATIONS & RESPONSES 2024-25 GJ OBSERVATIONS
R1 By December 27, 2024, the Board of Supervisors shall direct and fund the Controller to modify County financial systems such that spending classification data capture enables cross-agency categoric reporting for fiscal 2026 onward.

The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this Recommendation
will not be implemented.

BOS Response: “This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable or is not warranted. Many of the entities discussed (including School Districts, Special Districts, and cities) do not utilize County financial systems and the Board of Supervisors does not have the authority to compel them to do so. More importantly, if the County Controller were to undertake such a comprehensive report for all taxing entities within the County, those entities would have to bear the cost. The responsibility for tracking tax collection and spending properly lies with the taxing entity. It is not part of the statutory duties of the County Controller. If the County were to fund the comprehensive report, it would constitute a gift of public funds by the County in violation of California Constitution, article XVI ,§ 6. (See, e.g., Edgemont Community Services District v City of Moreno Valley (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1157 [finding that shifting the cost of a public agency’s obligations to another public agency violates the constitutional prohibition on gifts of public funds].) Even if all entities agreed to create a shared system and to pay their portion of the costs for the system, implementation would require extensive work to gather cross-agency requirements and develop a system that meets the needs of all entities. Such a process and system, if possible, would be very expensive to implement and implementation would take a number of years and be highly disruptive to the operations of the entities involved.

R2 By February 28, 2025 the Board of Supervisors, ACTTC and County Office of Education shall jointly determine personnel and professional services needed to make the Citizens’ Report a comprehensive presentation of all Sonoma County property and sales tax collections and expenditures.

The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this Recommendation
will not be implemented.

BOS Response: “This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The County of Sonoma, as defined for accounting purposes, does not include the incorporated cities, school districts or independent special districts in Sonoma County; therefore, it would be inappropriate to include financial data extraneous to the County of Sonoma in the Citizens’ Report. The purpose of the Citizens’ Report, an optional document, is to communicate selected financial information from the County of Sonoma’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. As noted in our prior response, were a separate joint report to be created, the other entities would need to share in the cost of compiling the data and producing a comprehensive report to avoid the constitutional prohibition against gifts of public funds.” ACTTC Response: “This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Preparing a non-mandated, crossgovernmental tax and spending report would detract from the ACTTC’s ability to provide mandated and auditing services to and for benefit of the public and local government agencies. Additionally, the County of Sonoma, as defined for reporting purposes, does not include the incorporated cities, school districts, or independent special districts in Sonoma County; therefore, it would be inappropriate to include financial data extraneous to the County of Sonoma in the Citizens’ Report.” The purpose of the Citizens’ Report, an optional document, is to communicate selected financial information from the County of Sonoma’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report R3 By June 30, 2025, the Board of Supervisors shall fund the ACTTC so the Citizens’ Report includes this categorized information for fiscal years 2026 and onward.

The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this recommendation
will not be implemented.

BOS Response: “This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. As noted above, it is not appropriate to include the information described in the Citizens’ Report.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

R4 By June 30, 2025, the Board of Supervisors shall fund and authorize staffing sufficient for the Auditor to conduct appropriate performance audits each fiscal year from 2026 onward The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this recommendation
may be implemented in the
future.

BOS Response: “This recommendation requires further analysis. The Auditor’s Office has been significantly impacted by a string of disasters, beginning with the 2017 wildfires, that have impacted the County. During this period, existing Audit staff was partially diverted toward necessary work to ensure compliance with state and federal requirements to receive disaster funding. The unit has only recently returned to full-time audit work. The Board of Supervisors will consider any requests for additional staffing that are made by the Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector as part of the FY 2025-2026 budget process. Given the limited resources available to the County, any additions will need to be considered in relation to other County needs and funding cannot be guaranteed.

R5 By December 28, 2024 the Board of Supervisors shall fund and authorize temporary staffing to enable the Assessor’s Office to eliminate the assessment backlog within 12 months.

The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this Recommendation
may be implemented in the
future.

BOS Response: “This recommendation requires further analysis. The Assessor’s Office continues to meet state-mandated timelines for assessments.

Since FY 2021-22 the Board of Supervisors has authorized 10.2 FTE additional positions for the Assessor’s Office, an increase of 16% to staffing in that unit.

This includes 1.0 term-limited position added during the FY 24-25 budget process. Given the significant timeframe for training and certification requirements, the full effect of these additions is not yet clear. The Board of Supervisors will consider any requests for additional resources made by the Clerk-Recorder-Assessor. Given the limited resources available to the County, further additions will need to be considered in relation to other County needs. Additionally, any new positions added will require training similar to prior additions, making elimination of a backlog in 12 months unlikely.” MADF A/K/A “The County Jail”: Déjà vu all over again
Respondents: SCSO: elected Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office BOS: Board of Supervisors

FINDINGS & RESPONSES
Finding F1 There are a large number of mentally ill inmates held in the MADF whose needs are not being met.

F1 SCSO Response: “The respondent partially agrees with the finding. The Sheriff's Office meets the needs of this population to the extent possible with the limited resources available. The lack of mental health treatment is not limited to MADF, but the community as a whole. Many inmates could potentially be better served in LPS or offsite mental health facilities, but statewide, these options are rarely available. The Sheriff's Office holds a contract to provide behavioral health care services to inmates. We also provide a broad range of programing to address various needs across the population. The Sheriff's Office agrees that the MADF was not built to accommodate this population. The addition of the Behavioral Health Housing Unit (BHHU) would provide additional resources and an environment more conducive to meeting the needs of this population. However, expanding mental health treatment throughout Sonoma County would help lower the number of incarcerated persons in the Sheriff's custody.” BOS Response: “We disagree wholly or partially with thisfinding. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office.

Finding 2 The planned MADF mental health extension, “on hold” since 2016, would increase the safety of correctional officers and inmates and make more room in the Main Jail for programming.

F2 SCSO Response: “The respondent partially agrees with the finding. Safety for both correctional staff and incarcerated persons is optimized when inmates can be appropriately housed based on their designated housing classification. Construction of the BHHU will increase the County's ability to provide an increased variety of appropriate housing for incarcerated persons. ln addition, construction of the BHHU will increase the County's ability to provide quality mental health treatment for our incarcerated population, within a dedicated therapeutic environment. It would provide the County with a secure, purpose-built mental health facility, rather than using standard detention-only facilities. This would allow for more comprehensive competency restoration programs in addition to other programming.” BOS Response: “We disagree wholly or partially with thisfinding. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office.” Finding 3 There is a persistent deficiency in OCA time for inmates, especially those in the modules for the mentally ill.

F3 SCSO Response: “The respondent disagrees with the finding. The sheriff's Office acknowledges that providing OCA time for inmates during a staffing crisis was extremely difficult. Our staff worked diligently to find innovative ways to provide OCA time for inmates, including contracting to house inmates in Solano County. Thanks to the aggressive and successful hiring efforts, we've been able to improve the amount of OCA time for our MADF inmates. lt should also be acknowledged since the COVID-19 pandemic there have been times when large groups of incarcerated persons could not be out of the cells at one time in an effort to decrease the spread of COVID. As our staffing levels continue to improve, the Sheriff's Office will be able to accommodate increased OCA for those incarcerated persons that present unique challenges and cannot safely mix in a large group setting.” BOS Response: “We disagree wholly or partially with thisfinding. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office.” Finding 4 There has been a chronic staffing shortage in the MADF.

F4 SCSO Response: “The respondent agrees with the finding. During the COVID shutdown, the county suspended hiring for a period of time, creating significant vacancy levels for many job classes. Post COVID-19 pandemic, low employment rates, economic factors, and societal shifts have had significant impacts on the labor market. Practically all employers have been affected by the extraordinarily challenging labor market. Overall, the County vacancy rate has been higher than past years and some job classes have particularly troubling vacancy rates. This has greatly impacted the Sheriff's Office in critical job classifications as societal shifts have had a significant impact on interest in law enforcement, dispatch, and correctional careers. Correctional job classes have historically been some of the most challenging job classes to fill. There is a cyclical correlation between excessive mandatory overtime requirements (resulting from extreme vacancy rates) and newly hired correctional staff separating shortly after being hired. This cycle has resulted in a few years where the hiring successes had little impact due to a high number of separations. Due to extensive efforts from Sheriff's management, the sheriff's Office has made significant strides in filling correctional deputy vacancies. As of July 26, 2024, there are only 5 vacancies in the correctional deputy job class at the Sheriff's Office. However, unavailable staff (staff unable to work in the facility due to injury illness, training, and other leaves) continue to cause a strain on employees working in the Detention Division, as overtime is needed to backfill staff who are unavailable due to various types of leaves.”
Finding 5 Mandatory staff overtime is excessive and a detriment to the safety,security, and health of both officers and inmates.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

F5 SCSO Response: “The respondent partially agrees with the finding. The Sheriff's Office Detention Division operates a facility 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with fixed post positions. ln order to ensure the safety, security, and health of inmates, and to meet the required state mandates, staff work mandatory overtime shifts to ensure coverage of fixed post positions. The Sheriff's Office acknowledges that mandatory staff overtime has been excessive and not sustainable for employee safety, security, and retention. High vacancy rates have created a problematic cycle of stress and pressure on employees who must work more overtime and carry increased workloads, which then can result in employee leave and employee separation, thus exacerbating the vacancy rates and operational issues.

These high vacancy rates have caused significant operational issues and service delivery challenges and are creating an untenable long-term work environment. Lowering the mandated overtime per employee, while still meeting operational mandates, safety, and security requirements, has been of the utmost importance to the sheriff and his executive team. The Sheriff's Office has dedicated significant resources towards filling vacancies and has had success thus far. With the successful hiring efforts and reduced vacancies, mandatory overtime has begun to decrease. With further decreases in mandatory overtime projected, the Sheriff's Office looks forward to increased correctional deputy safety, security, and retention.” BoS Response: “We disagree wholly or partially with thisfinding. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office.

RECOMMENDATIONS & RESPONSES 2024-25 GJ OBSERVATIONS
R1 By December 31, 2024, SCSO will develop a plan to provide mental health treatment based on inmates’ specific and individual mental health needs.”
The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this recommendation has
been implemented.

SCSO Response: “The recommendation has been implemented. The Sheriff’s Office understands the importance of providing mental health treatment based on the incarcerated person's specific and individual mental health needs. ln partnership with our contracted Behavior Health provider, Wellpath, the Sheriff's Office has and will continue to provide mental health treatment based on the needs of the individual.” R2 By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors will develop a plan to fund construction of the mental health extension.

The Grand Jury acknowledges
that thisrecommendation may
be implemented in the future.

BOS Response: “This recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, if warranted. The Board of Supervisors recognizes the importance of providing treatment for inmates with mental health and medical needs. The Board of Supervisors and County Executive will continue to work with the Sheriff’s Office to monitor the capacity of the MADF with respect to correctional officers and inmate safety and will continue to evaluate the need for additional resources. Requests for additional resources to complete the funding plan of the Behavioral Health Housing until will be consider as part of the annual countywide budget development process. The current cost estimate for construction of a Behavioral Health Housing Unit is $65 million, of which the County currently has $39 million in funds identified. The unfunded gap for construction of a facility is $26 million.” R3 By December 31, 2024, SCSO will develop a process to discharge inmates that takes their specific and individual medical and behavioral health needs into account.

The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this recommendation has
been implemented.

SCSO Response: “The recommendation will be implemented as the number of case managers/discharge planners increases at the jail. SCSO currently contracts with CFMG/Wellpath for 1.6 FTE discharge planners: 1.0 FTE working specifically with behavioral health patients, and 0.6 FTE addressing the needs of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) participants, The SCSO service contract with GEO Reentry Services for jail-based substance use disorder treatment (SUDT) services includes 1.0 FTE Reentry Counselor/Discharge Planner to address the needs of SUDT services and MAT participants through the development of comprehensive discharge and reentry plans and connecting participants to needed services. lmplementation of the State's expansion of Medi-Cal services to the justice-involved population via California Advancing and lnnovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) and a corresponding grant awarded to the Sheriff's Office for implementation will result in the addition of 2.0 FTE County Behavioral Health Senior Client Support Specialists who will provide case management and system navigation services to incarcerated individuals and connect them to post-release providers. An additional 0.4 -1.0 FTE CFMG/Wellpath MAT discharge planner will also be added as needed for the planned MAT program expansion. It should also be noted that incarcerated persons who are independently financially stable or possessing strong support systems do not typically require the services of a discharge planner.” R4 By December 31, 2024, SCSO will provide all eligible inmates at least ten hours of OCA per week. The Grand Jury acknowledges that this recommendation has
been implemented.

SCSO Response: “The recommendation has already been implemented. ln the Spring of 2023, the sheriff's Office started planning for anticipated changes to the Title 15 Minimum Jail Standards requirements for exercise and out of cell time. Prior to April 2023, the minimum requirement for exercise and out of cell time was three hours distributed over a period of seven days. Effective April 1,2023, Title 15 standards changed to ten hours of out of cell time distributed over a period of seven days (to include three hours of exercise and seven hours of recreation). ln April and May 2023, Correctional Deputies received training on the new Title 15 minimum jail standards. Effective June 2023, a change in our Classification/Housing Plan was implemented to meet Title 15 requirements of ten hours of out of cell time distributed over a period of seven days. Starting June 2023, all general population and protective custody population housing modules saw a significant adjustment to out of cell operations. Minimum, medium, and maximum-security incarcerated persons began mixing in larger groups for out of cell and recreation time. This resulted in a significant reduction of mix group numbers in these housing areas and an increase in out of cell activity. Currently, the Detention Division is meeting the minimum out of cell requirement of ten hours over a seven-day period in these housing areas. There are several areas of the Main Adult Detention Facility where incarcerated persons are classified at higher levels or require small mix groups for out of cell activity. ln these housing areas, out of cell activity schedules are challenging as we strive to meet the needs of the individual while maintaining a safe environment for our staff and the incarcerated persons in our care. Our Classification Team continues to work with jail operations to come up with innovative ways to accomplish our goal of ten hours of out of cell activity over a seven-day period. ln January 2024, a portion of our mental health population was shifted to a new housing location that included larger dayroom areas as well as smaller, separate day rooms to accommodate smaller mix groups or individuals during out of cell time. As a result, the individuals in this housing location are receiving at or above ten hours of out of cell activity over a seven-day period. As our staffing levels continue to improve, the Sheriff's Office Detention Division will reopen two of our closed housing modules at the Main Adult Detention Facility. This will allow for increased out of cell activity for those incarcerated persons that present unique challenges and cannot safely mix in a large group setting.” Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

R5 By June 30, 2025, the SCSO will have a vacancy rate in its Corrections Unit of less than 10%.

SCSO Response: “This recommendation has already been implemented. The Sheriff’s Office currently has 208 FTEs in the Correctional Deputy job class. As of July 25, 2024, there are 5 vacancies. The current vacancy rate in the Correctional Deputy job class is 2.4%.”
The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this recommendation has
been implemented.

R6 By December 31, 2024, mandated monthly overtime for SCSO Corrections Officers will average no more than 25 hours a month.

The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this recommendation will
not be implemented.

SCSO Response: “The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable and could potentially violate state mandates pertaining to operating a correctional facility. The Sheriff's Office acknowledges the importance of having a minimal amount of overtime per month for our correctional deputies. The Sheriff’s Office is unable to control many factors that contribute to overtime. Aspects such as employee separation, vacation leave, sick leave, FMLA leave, work related injury, non-work-related injury and training make up many reasons for increased overtime hours for our employees. The Correctional Deputy job class is primarily composed of fixed post positions. Therefore, the most efficient method to alleviate overtime for our correctional deputies would be to increase allocations in the correctional deputy job class. More allocations would provide relief staffing, or staffing used to cover vacant posts due to vacation, training, injury, and illness. There are currently 208 allocations in the correctional deputy job class. ln FY 08-09, there were 246 allocations for correctional deputies. Over the course of several years correctional deputy positions have been eliminated, eliminating relief coverage.

Therefore, any vacant posts due to vacation, training, injury and illness results in an increased need for mandatory overtime coverage. An increase in allocations would allow the Sheriff's Office to efficiently backfill employees on various types of leave with full-time employees, thus reducing the total overtime per month. For this response to be reasonable, an increase in overall allocations would be necessary.” Often Reported, Never Repaired: Department of Health Services Respondents: DHS: Dept. of Health Services; ACTTC: Auditor/Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector; SPI: Public infrastructure; HR: SoCo Human Resources; BOS: Board of Supervisors

FINDINGS & RESPONSES
Finding 1 DHS contracting practices and procedures are chaotic, inefficient, and take too long. This results in delayed execution of contracts, delays in vendor payments, and local County health services missing for extended periods.

BOS Response: “We disagree partially with these findings. The characterization of DHS contracting procedures as chaotic is misleading and misses a broader issue. While we agree that most of the County’s contracting and procurement processes take too long, most of those processes are dictated by State statute (not County requirements) and there is little flexibility within those statutes. It is important to remark that Federal and State funding requirements are complex and inflexible. The number of mandated changes after the pandemic have greatly contributed to not being able to design efficient and sustainable systems as regulatory agencies guidance is constantly revised.” DHS Response: “We disagree partially with this finding. We agree that some of the contracting practices and procedures are inefficient and take too long.

It is important to remark that contracting and procurement issues are not exclusively specific to Department of Health Services (DHS) given the interfaces with other county departments that influence DHS processes. The processes have been impacted by the reality of transitioning out of non- disaster operations which has been complicated to complete given staffing vacancies, and new hires’ learning curves not only in the Department of Health Services but also in the other departments we interface with. Also, it is important to recognize that Federal and State funding requirements are complex and inflexible. The number of mandated changes after the pandemic have greatly contributed to not being able to design efficient and sustainable systems as regulatory agencies guidance is constantly revised.”
“As a summary we offer the following information:

Stricter Accountability Measures: California has introduced rigorous reporting standards tied to state funding, especially under the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) program. Counties must submit detailed plans with quantifiable, data-driven goals. These plans are subject to regular monitoring, and funding is contingent upon meeting specific benchmarks.

Medicaid and Medicare: reporting requirements have significantly impacted all counties by increasing administrative complexity and putting pressure on current baseline procurement and financial capacity. These changes have been crucial in ensuring compliance and effective use of healthcare funds but have also presented considerable challenges to county governments. This includes demonstrating improvements in patient care, reductions in hospital readmissions, and enhanced behavioral health services. The need to collect and report on these metrics has forced counties to rapidly integrate new data collection and reporting tools without the benefit of having final regulations.” ACTTC Response: “We disagree partially with this finding. ACTTC staff supports vendor payments after departments have completed their internal process.

We agree that vendor payments delays exist. However, ACTTC staff is not involved in the department's contracting process and cannot opine the cause of contract related delays.”
Finding 2 DHS processes for procurement needs identification, RFP generation, and competitive sourcing take too long to execute and aren’t clearly competitive.

DHS Response: “We disagree partially with this finding. We do agree with the inconsistent timing of some of the RFPs run in the department and are looking to address these inconsistencies. We disagree that procurements aren’t clearly competitive, that there is no identification, or competitive sourcing.

Not unlike what other counties and the nation face, it is unfortunate the behavioral health system is strained by workforce shortages, inadequate infrastructure, high demand, and funding limitations, all of which contribute to challenges in providing timely and effective care to those in need. Given this, there are few providers qualified to provide the services needed within Sonoma County, and in those situations, competitive bidding is not a viable option.

This has caused clients to be served in another county. We hold bidder’s conferences, which is a common practice, so that providers can provide feedback and answer questions. We work closely with Sonoma County Public Infrastructure-purchasing division to ensure we are following appropriate RFP protocols and procedures. We follow sole source procurement procedures and single source procedures while applicable RFP procedures are scheduled as appropriate.”
Finding 3 Chronic short staffing and employee turnover have led to a significant loss of institutional knowledge.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

BOS Response: “We disagree partially with thisfinding. We agree with the Department of Human Resources’ response to thisfinding.” DHS Response: “We disagree wholly or partially with this finding. Currently, it is difficult for DHS to substantiate this claim. While short staffing and employee turnover historically lead to a loss of institutional knowledge, DHS does not track this information.” ACTTC RESPONSE: I (we) agree with finding F3.

HR Response: “We disagree partially with this finding. Currently, it is difficult for the Human Resources Department to substantiate this claim. While short staffing and employee turnover historically lead to a loss of institutional knowledge, Human Resources does not have sufficient information to validate this finding.”
SPI Response: “We disagree wholly with thisfinding. SPI does not track thisinformation.” F4 Inadequate delegation of authority and a toxic work culture inhibitsindividual decision-making and contributesto DHS’sfailure to perform effectively.

DHS Response: “We disagree wholly. Staff has daylighted late payments to providers and late behavioral health contracts that seem to have been an issue within the Department of Health Services for 10 plus years. This was feedback received not only from staff, but also from behavioral health providers. We provided a short-term solution with 6-month advance payments in fiscal year 23-24 and called administration staff back into the office who had been working remotely during the COVID pandemic. Staffing vacancies had also been a factor, but in just over one year we have improved staffing vacancies; decreasing our overall department vacancies by 9% (from 23% in July 2023 to 14% in June 2024). Management believes morale has improved as critical vacancies have been filled.”
F4. HR Response: “We disagree partially with this finding. Currently, it is difficult for the Human Resources Department to substantiate this claim.

However, during FY 2024125 Human Resources will be launching a county-wide employee engagement survey which will provide us with the data needed to develop and implement strategies to incorporate survey outcomes into future operational planning. HR will work with a consultant to analyze the responses to gain insights into employee satisfaction, engagement levels, and specific areas needing attention. These strategies will aim to improve work culture and foster a positive and productive work environment, with the goal of improving employee retention and sense of belonging.” SPI Response: “We disagree partially with this finding. SPI agrees generally that short staffing and employee turnover can lead to loss of institutional knowledge however SPI does not track this information.” F5 DHS Fiscal and County general accounting process doesn’t require or retain all information needed for post-fact analysis of who is being paid, whether the payment was the result of a no-bid contract, or whether payment documentation matches funding source requirements.

ACTTC RESPONSE: “We disagree wholly or partially with this finding. ACTTC fiscal policies RE-2 and RE-3 define department responsibilities and procedures for grant compliance, monitoring, and reporting. All information uploaded to the County financial system is retained pursuant to adopted retention schedules.”
SPI Response: “We disagree wholly or partially with this finding. This is an overly broad statement with very vague language. The County, and particularly the Department of Health Services, is a highly regulated agency where federal and state funding sources require this information All information used in federal and state funding is retained pursuant to retention schedules.” F6 County Purchasing and Internal Audit failed to require that DHS follow mandated procurement policies.

BOS Response: “We disagree partially with thisfinding. We agree with the Sonoma Public Infrastructure’s response to thisfinding.” ACTTC RESPONSE: “We disagree wholly or partially with this finding. Internal Audit is not responsible for enforcing procurement policies. Internal Audit issued a procurement audit report in August 2023, which Included a DHS procurement related finding. The Procurement Process Audit Report is available on our website under "Fiscal Year End June 30,2022. Please see the link to our website below: https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/auditor-controller-treasurer-taxcollector/audit-reports” SPI Response: “We disagree wholly or partially with this finding. While SPI has developed templates for procurement of goods and services that are generally applicable County-wide, these policies do not displace the specialized procedures that certain departments like DHS must follow. Their practices and procedures are designed to address the mandates of federal and state funding sources. As noted, departments may consult SPI staff for guidance and best practices or may elect to conduct their own processes in accordance with established policies.” F7 The BOS failed to require changesto DHS procurement procedures despite published reportsthat DHS has been violating County procurement policy.

BOS Response: “We disagree partially with this finding. The Board of Supervisors called for a new Request for Proposals for homeless services following the issuance of the Pisenti & Brinker, LLC agreed upon procedures report regarding DEMA Consulting & Management.” ACTTC RESPONSE: “We disagree wholly or partially with this finding. The BoS called for DHS to conduct a new competitive Request For Proposal event for homeless services following the issuance of the Pisenti & Brinker, LLC agreed-upon procedures report regarding DEMA Consulting & Management.” RECOMMENDATIONS & RESPONSES 2024-25 GJ OBSERVATIONS
R1 By December 31, 2024, DHS will initiate regular public reports of the programs for which an award has been or is intended to be made (including those programs without a contractor), the contracts in effect, the date of execution of every contract, the contract term, and explanations for any contracts not executed prior to the effective service start date (F1, F2).

The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this recommendation will
not be implemented.

DHS Response: “This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Award information is already publicly accessible and provided via board items. The County Executive now requires DHS staff to attach executed contract documents, and when an executed contract is not feasible as negotiations may be in flux, a sample contract and/or authority to execute is conditioned upon County Counsel’s approval. DHS programming has in excess of six hundred contracts within a fiscal year. Adding workload to create new public reports for information that can be made available by the existing Public Request Act process will be labor intensive and duplicative in some cases. The recommendation is not deemed to be a reasonable at this time given the many changes state and federal agencies have required of the county. Doing so would further increase complexity and delays.”
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

R2 By November 1st, 2024, DHS and County Human Resources departments shall submit a recruitment and retention plan to the County Executive to reduce DHS vacancies to no more than 10% of authorized non-field positions. (F3, F4) The Grand Jury acknowledges
that thisrecommendation may
be implemented in the future.

DHS Response: “This recommendation requires further analysis. We are unclear of the definition of what “non-field” positions is referring to. DHS does not track vacancy rates by whether the position serves in a “field” setting or not. We are, however, happy to report that the DHS HR team now has a regular monthly meeting with the County’s central HR with the goal of improving vacancy rates. We now have two analysts in County HR dedicated to working with DHS on our recruitment and retention goals.”
HR RESPONSE: “This recommendation requires further analysis. We are unclear of the definition of what "non-field" positions is referring to. DHS does not track vacancy rates by whether the position serves in a "field" setting or not. Nonetheless, we offer the following information. The challenges the Department of Health Services has faced the last several years to fill healthcare related positions are not unique to Sonoma County. There is a shortage of individuals entering the industry and an insufficient number of qualified individuals interested in changing employers right now to fill vacancies at both private and public employers. This shortage has greatly contributed to the department's inability to quickly fill positions in some job classifications as well as an increased vacancy rate, when coupled with the significant growth the department that has experienced in recent years (the number of allocated positions has increased 37% between the start of Fiscal Years 2019/20 and 2024/25.) The job classifications with the highest number of vacant allocations in the Department of Health Services include Behavioral Health Clinician Intern/Clinician, Alcohol and Other Drug Services Counselor I/II, Senior Client Support Specialist, and Environmental Health Specialist Trainee I/II. Positions in these job classifications require either specific education, work experience, and/or professional licensure, which significantly limits the number of qualified applicants the County receives and subsequently progress through examination and selection processes. As of June 28, 2024, the overall vacancy rate for the Department of Health Services was 14.50%. When excluding positions in the aforementioned four job classifications with the department's highest numbers of vacancies, which are also amongst the County's most difficult to fill, the vacancy rate drops to 10.79%. This rate includes positions that work in administration, clinical, and field settings. Human Resources and the Department of Health Services need further clarification to identify what specific positions are being referred to as "authorized non-field positions" in order for Human Resources to determine what the adjusted vacancy rate with that parameter applied. Central Human Resources and the Health Services Department are and will continue meeting regularly to discuss recruitment needs and remain expeditious in developing and continuing efforts to reduce the department's vacancy rate. The two departments have recently collaborated on a tracking mechanism which allows staff to identify the length of time various recruitment, examination, and selection process steps take to complete, determine if there are any "pain points" or delays at any steps in the process, and implement solutions with the intent to reduce delays for future recruitments. Staff are also currently looking at ways to be more strategic in recruiting, examining, and selecting individuals for hard-to-fill job classifications. Current strategies include evaluating the efficacy of recruitment advertising, examination, department selection, and pre-employment processes to maximize visibility, remove hurdles and/or barriers that may cause qualified individuals from either not applying or opting out of the process, and reduce lengthy/protracted timelines which make the County less competitive compared to private sector employers for similar types of positions. As efforts in these areas progress, both departments anticipate Health Services' vacancy rate will continue to decline. Should that not occur, or should additional attention be warranted, the departments will engage with the County Executive if determined necessary at the time.”
HR Update: “DHS has been working both internally within the department and with central HR to evaluate current practices and implement process improvements with the goal to reduce vacancy rates and the time it takes to fill positions across the department, not just those who interact with the public. As of 2/18/25 the vacancy rate was 12.22% (739.83 FTE; 90.42 vacant). The department’s vacancy rate on August 7,2024 was 15.11% (731.83 FTE; 110.56 vacant).”
R3 By December 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors will request, and County Auditor will complete and publish, a comprehensive audit report on DHS procurement processes and procedures, contract administration oversight and compliance with County procurement policy and publicly present said report to the Board of Supervisors. (F1, F3, F6, F7) The Grand Jury acknowledges
that thisrecommendation may
be implemented in the future.

BOS Response: “This recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future if warranted. Currently, the County is undergoing a countywide risk assessment which includes DHS contract administration and ACTTC management. Upon conclusion of the assessment, departments will determine the appropriate steps to ensure departmental compliance with County procurement policies. The County Executive will work with departments to evaluate the need for additional resources which will be made through the countywide budget process.

This recommendation will be completed as soon as possible; however, it is not currently known if it can be completed and presented to the Board by December 31, 2025.”
BOS Update: “No additional internal reports and/or recommendations for improvement have been produced by DHS since the Countywide risk assessment was initiated. Operational processes for initiating, approving, and managing contract payments have been changed since the initial update: 1/12th payment approach recommendation considered and approved by the Board. Approved 10/15/24 - https://sonomacounty.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6888956&GUID=682AA542-F038-44FC-9514-AE2E7FD49265 FYE 23/24 expedited payment Approved 10/15/24 - https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6892948&GUID=BB681D0D-F2A5-402C8AC5-4FE4F5FB33A0 On November 22, 2024, we engaged municipal fiscal consultant to provide executive-level project assistance to DHS staff in preparing their Fiscal Year 2025/26 budget, including providing recommendations to department leadership on budget and fiscal best practices.

Since October 15, 2024 a retired Human Services contract coordinator has been assisting DHS in reviewing its contract and RFP procedures, templates, annual timelines, and internal processes.

Since November 18, 2024, retired Health and Human Services Director from Solano County has been assisting DHS in a variety of operational areas and providing advice and guidance on various fiscal processes and best practices.” Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

ACTTC Response: “This recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future if warranted. The ACTTC - Internal Audit Division (IA) issued an audit report of the Sonoma County Procurement Process in August 2023. The report includes a finding that Department of Health Services (DHS) contracts are being single or sole sourced without Purchasing Agent approval. This finding was identified as a Risk Classification B: Significant Control Weakness. The report summarizes testing of 23 of 94 DHS contracts, which found that all 23 were not competitively bid for at least ten years. The IA countywide risk assessment includes DHS contract administration. ACTTC management will evaluate the appropriate scope and resources needed to complete an audit of DHS procurement processes and procedures, contract administration oversight and compliance with County procurement policy. The size and scope of the audit and available resources will determine when a DHS contract audit can be included in the annual Audit Plan. This recommendation will be completed as soon as possible; however, it is not currently known if it can be completed and presented to the Board by December 31, 2025. ACTTC management is also aware that the CEO has engaged a procurement consulting firm to review the purchasing lifecycle and grant subaward processes for the seven Safety Net departments including DHS. An initial report for this engagement is expected in September 2024. The findings and recommendations from this report, as well as the time needed to implement accepted recommendations, may also impact the scope and timing of IA's audit of DHS procurement processes, contract administration and compliance with County policies.” ACTTC Update: … “my office has been working on a strategic initiative to enhance the independence and effectiveness of Internal Audit (IA) and ensure that IA operates in compliance with the Institute of Internal Auditors’ Global Audit Standards. This includes updates to the Internal Audit Charter and increased engagement and oversight of the Internal Audit function by the Board of Supervisors. On March 25, 2025, the ACTTC will present our recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and request that the Board approve updates to the Internal Audit Charter and establish an independent Audit Committee, which will include two members of the Board and a member of the public. Additionally, the ACTTC will include a request for two additional audit staff in the FY 2025-26 requested budget. Internal Audit currently has four staff, made up of three Senior Internal Auditors, and one Audit Manager who also serves as the Chief Audit Executive. The FY 2025-26 requested budget also includes $75,000 for professional services, which will allow IA to contract with external firms to perform audits that IA does not have sufficient resources or expertise to perform.” “The FY 25-26 risk assessment is still in development and should be completed later this Spring and will be used to inform the 25-26 Audit Plan. Although the risk assessment is not completed, Internal Audit (IA) anticipates that an audit of DHS contract administration and oversight will be included in the FY2025-26 audit plan. Planning for this audit has not begun and IA has not determined the resource requirements to perform the audit. Separately, the County CEO and HR departments entered into an agreement with a consulting firm (Municipal Resources Group, LLC) to, in part, review and redesign of DHS’s contracting and procurement. To avoid a duplication of effort, IA’s initial audit of DHS will likely focus on contract administration, monitoring, payments and the design of related procedures and controls. IA will consider auditing DHS procurement procedures and purchasing policy compliance in a future engagement. The decision to have the DHS audit performed by staff or an external accounting firm has not been determined.” R4 By January 1, 2025, County Purchasing and the County Controller shall implement a system that ensures all no-bid and sole-sourced contracts are identified, accounted for as such, publicly reported, and have required supporting documentation and waivers on file. (F3, F4, F5 F6)
The Grand Jury acknowledges
that this Recommendation will
be implemented in the future.

ACTTC Response: “This recommendation will be implemented in the future. Pursuant to the Sonoma County Service Agreement Policy (Policy), the Purchasing Agent administers the Policy and approves Single/Sole Source waiver requests. ACTTC staff is working with the Sonoma County Public Infrastructure - Purchasing Division to implement recommendations in R4. Staff is evaluating identification and reporting strategies, and financial system functionality. The recommendation will be implemented as soon as possible; however, it is not currently known if the recommendation can be fully implemented by January 1, 2025.”
ACTTC Update: “ACTTC and Sonoma County Public Infrastructure – Purchasing Division (Purchasing) staff collaborated to create functionality in the financial system to allow Purchasing staff to flag Sole Source or Single Source waivers on Purchase Orders (POs). Purchasing will also have the ability run a Sole/Single Source Waiver report (not currently available). These changes will go-live in the County’s financial system on March 10, 2025 as part of a system update.

Purchasing, with support from ACTTC staff, is still working on an implementation plan to make this a required field (requires a lookback on all open POs), ensure all Single and Sole Sources waivers are identified and captured, and lastly how best to make the information publicly available.” SPI Response: “This recommendation has not been implemented but will in the future. The SPI Purchasing Division is currently working with the Auditor's Office to implement a step in the County's financial system (EFS) that would require departments to indicate whether they had fully procured a contract or had a single/sole source waiver approved by the Purchasing Agent. This would potentially also create the ability to run reports. Since this change will require evaluation of current system capabilities, it is unknown whether it could be implemented by the recommended 1/1/2025 date. The department will however, work with staff to implement as soon as possible. The recommendation states that a system shall be implemented ensuring "all no-bid and solesourced contracts are identified, accounted for as such, publicly reported, and have required supporting documentation and waivers on file. SPI agrees with this recommendation “with the exception of all no-bid and sole sourced contracts." Delegated authority established by the Board and by policy allow for departments to procure goods and services without as follows: Under Sonoma County Ordinance No. 4654 and the Sonoma County Procurement of Goods and Equipment Policy. County departments may make direct purchases under $7,000. Additionally, under the Sonoma County Service Agreements policy, departments may enter into short form agreements ($5,000) and under. Alternatively, they may conduct an RFP or request a Single/Source waiver.

Therefore, documentation and waivers would not be tracked and reported for these instances. It should also be noted that this information would not include contracts for services that are expressly exempt from competitive bidding requirements, such as architectural services, engineering services, and outside legal services. It is important to note that State law exempts these types of services from competitive solicitation because the County is required to select the desired provider based on their special training and experience, not based on cost. For these types of services, the County only solicits requests for qualifications or requests for proposals”
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Responsesto Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Reports
2018-2019 through 2021-2022
Every year the Civil Grand Jury produces a Continuity Report reviewing official responses to the previous year’s Grand Jury reports. Agencies and elected officialsthat receive a Civil Grand Jury report are required to respond to it in one of three ways:
• The report’s findings may be wholly accepted, or rejected, as written. • The report’s findings may be partially accepted and partially rejected, or • The report’s findings require further analysis.

No follow-up action (by either the Civil Grand Jury or the respondent) is required in cases where findings are accepted or rejected. When the respondent indicated that a recommendation required further analysis, however, the public is entitled to know what that analysis concluded; this report will tell you.

Similarly, regarding a report’s recommendations, agencies and elected officials must respond in one of four ways:
• The recommendation is accepted and has already been implemented. • The recommendation is rejected and no further action will be taken. • The recommendation requires further analysis (which should be completed within six months of publication of the Grand Jury report).
• The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future.

State law requires the heads of government agencies and elected officials to respond within 60 days of the Civil Grand Jury’s issuance of a report with a copy to the governing board; boards, councils and agencies run by boards are allowed an additional 30 days. Of course, substantive issues may not be resolved by the time the subsequent Civil Grand Jury issues its Continuity Report. Responses stating that “further analysis is required” or that “recommendations will be implemented in the future” are a commitment to action that probably won’t be monitored or reported: this can be a convenient way for respondents to kick the can down the road (and sometimes hope it goes unnoticed).

This year, the Sonoma County Grand Jury reviewed all unresolved items listed in the “Civil Grand Jury 4 Year Continuity Report” published by the 2023-2024 Civil Grand Jury. The Civil Grand Jury requested agency updates to recommendations that promised further analysis or future action to see whether these commitments had been fulfilled and/or promised actions had been taken by these agencies.

The following tables show the status of findings and recommendations that were not resolved in prior years’ reports, and whether government commitments for future action were eventually met. We’re pleased to note that most government commitments were fulfilled and here the Grand Jury is equally pleased to share the list of items still outstanding.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Civil Grand Jury Report
2018-2019 Unfulfilled Commitments
THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH BUDGET: A Perfect Storm
Unresolved Recommendations and
Current Status
Implemented
R5 DHS will continue and expedite the Community Based Organization (CBO) contract evaluation and build performance metrics.

Current Status: DHS has stated that it drafted and adopted specific budgetary policies and procedures in the summer of 2019 to address this finding. CAO staff continues to work closely with DHS Finance on budgetary matters—through the normal budget cycle and through board items. Despite this response, from 2022 to the present, DHS contract performance has been problematic, and no performance metrics are being published.

No
Civil Grand Jury Report 2019-2020 Updated
All recommendations resolved.

Civil Grand Jury Report 2020-2021 Unfulfilled Commitments BROADBAND ACCESS IN SONOMA COUNTY: Broadband IS a Utility; The Quiet Crisis of Availability
Unresolved Recommendations and
Current Status
Implemented
R1 The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors consider recognizing and designating broadband as a “Utility” that needs prioritization by October 31, 2021.

Current Status: On March 2, 2021, the BOS approved a 5-year strategic plan that includes broadband deployment and access. It does not include designation of broadband service as a utility.

Partially, no
further followup
recommended
R4, R7, R8, R9 and R10 Current Status: These recommendations depend on broadband’s being designated as a utility. See R1.

Partially, no
further followup
recommended
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

COUNTY JAIL INMATE TELEPHONE AND COMMISSARY:

Overcharging a Captive Population
Unresolved Recommendations and
Current Status
Implemented
R2 By September 30, 2021, the Sheriff’s Office develop a new communications model to provide for sufficient telephone kiosks to allow the inmate population free telephone and video visitation for at least 90 minutes per week until such time as a new communication contract is in effect.

Current Status: According to the Sheriff’s Office, inmates are allowed 70 minutes of phone calls per week at a cost to them of $.07 per minute. Prior to Covid, inmates were charged $.21 per minute. There are no additional telephone kiosks in place and there are no video visits.

Partially, no
further follow-up
recommended
R5 The Sheriff’s Office reevaluate its commissary markup to be in line with grocery store, as opposed to convenience store, pricing, on or before September 1, 2021.

Current Status: The commissary is now run by Summit, an outside company. More items are available to inmates, some at a lower cost, but many items are still marked up much more than grocery store prices.

Partially
complete
R6 By September 30, 2021, the Sheriff’s Office, using the reserve Inmate Welfare Trust funds, resume all inmate programs in existence pre-Covid, with funding at the same level once Covid restrictions are lifted.

Current Status: According to the Sheriff’s Office, inmate programs are being resumed. In-person classes as well as online classes are now offered.

Partially
complete
R7 The Sheriff’s Office restructure the 10-member Inmate Welfare Trust Committee by December 31, 2021, to include more diverse representation, for example, community members, financial analysts, social workers and educators to bring the Committee more in line with the requirements of Penal Code 5006 regarding commission membership standards to State Prisons.

Current Status: The jail does not have to abide by the penal code for state prisons.

However, according to the Sheriff’s Office there are now two civilians on the Inmate Welfare Trust Committee, including one educator. The remaining committee members are composed of Sheriff’s Office staff.

Resolved
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

COVID MITIGATION AND THE COUNTY JAIL And its Unexpected Consequences Unresolved Recommendations and
Current Status
Implemented
R1 The Sheriff’s Office develop, no later than September 1, 2021, a policy to restore out of cell activity, in person and video visitation, and all programs to prepandemic levels.

Current Status: In-person visits, and some classes and programs for inmates, have been resumed. There is little out-of-cell-activity and there are no video visits.

Partially
R4 The Sheriff’s Office and the Board of Supervisors work together to develop a plan by December 31, 2021, to increase the contracted Wellpath resources to fund four additional Wellpath discharge planners for mental health and medical assignment to the Main Adult Detention Facility.

Current Status: Wellpath services have increased per 2023-24 Grand Jury report responses.

Resolved
R6 The Sheriff’s Office implement a surveillance-testing program and require 100% participation by all unvaccinated jail staff by September 1, 2021.

Current Status: The Public Health Order regarding Covid has been rescinded, so the vaccine mandate is no longer applicable.

N/A, Resolved
Civil Grand Jury Report 2021-2022 Updated Responses
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES: Dedication Overcame Dysfunction Unresolved Recommendations and
Current Status
Implemented
R8 By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors will consult with the Human Resources Department to consider establishing an Ombudsperson for County employees to provide a neutral means to voice issues of concern.

Current Status: The Human Resources Department responded that it plans to conduct an employee-engagement survey in 2024 to determine the best path forward.

Partially, survey
in progress in
2025
R13 By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator’s Office work with the Department of Health Services executive leadership team in developing an actionable plan to address work culture issues, including retaliation, harassment and bullying.

Current Status: DHS responded that it hired an equity manager in March of 2022 who was then hired away by Marin County. Recruitment is underway to fill this position. DHS developed an equity plan in December of 2022.

Partially, no
further followup
recommended
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

R14 By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator’s Office to work with the Department of Health Services’ executive leadership team to develop a clearly defined and actionable plan for internal communication that includes greater transparency and staff participation throughout the department.

Current Status: DHS responded that it published an internal newsletter, DHS Connect, in the fall of 2022. Video clips of DHS employees were produced in November of 2023 and used in promotional material to recruit staff.

Partially, no
further followup
recommended
R16 By March 1, 2023, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator’s Office and the County Human Resources Department to develop a plan for the Board’s review and consideration whereby the County Human Resources Department has oversight authority over all satellite human resource divisions.

Current Status: The Human Resources Department responded that it will work with a consultant in 2024 to develop recommendations regarding oversight of all satellite-department human resources functions.

Resolved via
County org
restructure
SMART DECISION-MAKING: Citizen Feedback is Critical for Success Unresolved Recommendations and
Current Status
Implemented
R4 By January 31, 2023, the Board of Directors require written Citizen’s Oversight Committee analysis and recommendations prior to all strategic decisions whether or not incorporated in the five-year Strategic Plan.

Current Status: The COC bylaws require the COC to issue reports, on at least an annual basis, on issues related to the Strategic Plan, but not on all strategic decisions.

Partially
resolved
In summary, the tables above give an update of the recommendations of the Civil Grand Jury reports of 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 that were unanswered when the follow-up reports were published. While there are still unresolved issues, this update shows the progress made after the Civil Grand Juries’ terms expired.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Back row standing, L to R: Edward Campaña, George Greeley, Mike Brady, Marc Andrade, Nancy Fowler
Front row seated L to R: Cecily Wallis, Tom McMains, Karen Rocco (Foreperson), Wendy Roberts (Foreperson Pro Tem), Wynne Grossman
(Not pictured: Andy Cohen, Rob Hunter, Eric Frost, Troy Rohde) Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

PEANUTS United Feature Syndicate,Inc.

JassicCharlie
Spons suoopy's Family Fund
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

The 2024-2025 Sonoma County
Civil Grand Jury
Release Date
Animal Services in Sonoma County
Separate and Not Equal
The Costs and Consequences of Decentralization
Photo of our three Honorary Jurors
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 1 Animal Services in Sonoma County
Separate and Not Equal
The Costs and Consequences of Decentralization

SUMMARY
In addition to approximately 480,000 residents, Sonoma County households include an estimated 113,000 dogs and 100,000 cats. Feral cats and other domestic and wild species add to the animal population. State law mandates that county and city governments provide humane care for animals and operate animal control programs to protect public health and safety. Because the entire state of California is a declared Rabies Area, every dog owner is required to maintain current rabies vaccination and licensing of their pet. Every county and city government must implement a Rabies Control Plan that includes ensuring availability of low-cost rabies vaccination, quarantine of dangerous animals, enforcement of licensing, and submission of dog licensing data to the state. Spay/neuter programs for population control are strongly recommended.

A citizen complaint prompted the 2024-2025 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) to investigate the Petaluma-based North Bay Animal Services (NBAS). This led to a broader study of county-wide animal services. The work was guided, in part, by a 2012 study of animal services and subsequent updates undertaken for the Board of Supervisors by the Department of Health Services (DHS). The initial report mapped existing services, identified best practices, and explored alternative governance models to provide consistent, cost-effective animal services. It called for a task force to establish shared standards and resources and explore alternative governance models to provide consistent, cost-effective animal services. The task force members failed to agree on recommendations for a governance model, oversight, shared resources, or standards. One respondent told the Jurors that after two years of sporadic work, the only agreement was on a logo. While the task force was ultimately disbanded, the Grand Jury found a high level of voluntary compliance with industry standards during visits to the Humane Society of Sonoma County (HSSC) and the Rohnert Park Animal Shelter (RPAS). Report updates have documented the continuous improvement of Sonoma County Animal Services (SCAS). This public agency serves the 66% of county residents who reside in the unincorporated areas, the City of Healdsburg, and the City of Santa Rosa.

A discussion of animal services in the remaining third of the county is largely absent from recent county DHS reports. Mapping and evaluating agencies serving this area became a focus of the Grand Jury investigation. Jurors learned that Rohnert Park’s municipal shelter also serves Cotati in cooperation with the cities’ police departments. The City of Sonoma Police Department manages that city’s dog licensing and sends animals to SCAS or Pets Lifeline when needed.

NBAS is responsible for providing animal services to more than 20% of the county through contracts with the Cities of Cloverdale, Windsor, Sebastopol, and Petaluma.

Evidence collected by the Jurors confirmed the complainant’s allegation that a lack of city oversight is allowing NBAS to operate in violation of applicable laws and other terms of its contracts. The Grand Jury also confirmed the absence of oversight by the organization’s board of directors. Its dog licensing rates are approximately half of the national average of 23% and are far below those reported by SCAS. It is placing animals in foster-to-adopt homes without prior, Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 2 or timely scheduling of sterilization. It fails consistently to report dog bites to the county health officer. It lacks an established role in the county’s Animals in Disaster Response Plan. Shelter maintenance and operation fall short of industry standards specified in its contracts. Staff are over-burdened and under-qualified. Given the extensive reach of NBAS, these shortcomings are a matter of concern for public health and safety and are a source of potential liability for the cities it serves. The governments contracting with NBAS have failed to exercise their right and responsibility to ensure that NBAS is providing the services it has contracted to perform and that animals are getting services that are legally required.

More than a decade has passed since Sonoma County convened public and private partners in an animal services task force to identify a governance model conducive to uniform and costefficient provision of animal control and shelter. Shortcomings and inefficiencies in the current system include the inability to ensure county-wide compliance with state laws or to mount a fully coordinated emergency animal evacuation. Uneven license rates undermine rabies control and fail to secure funds needed for animal services.

Based on these findings, the Grand Jury strongly recommends that county and city governments and their non-governmental partners renew efforts to coordinate and standardize animal services throughout Sonoma County and adopt an effective system of oversight.

GLOSSARY
• Animal Control includes field calls by certified Animal Control Officers (ACO) and implementation of programs to comply with state law and local ordinances that require rabies vaccination, licensing of dogs, and provision of spay/neuter programs. • Animal Control Officer/Animal Regulation Officer (ACO) certification requires completion of the 40-hour PC 832 Arrest and Firearms Course and three months of field training.
• Shelter Care includes the housing, feeding, tracking and care of animals, provision of veterinary care, and management of adoption programs.
• Foster-to-Adopt Programs enlist volunteers to care for and socialize animals to prepare them for adoption.
• Fear Free Shelter Certification is a program designed to minimize stress and optimize the safe handling of shelter animals. https://fearfreepets.com/fear-free-certificationoverview/ • Community/feral cats are cats with no acknowledged owner. Government agencies are responsible for managing the cat population through accessible, free spay/neuter programs.
• TNR is the acronym for Trap/Neuter/Return, a program in which cats in feral cat communities are trapped, sterilized and vaccinated, and then returned to the community. • Rabies Area means any area determined by the California Public Health and Safety Director where the existence of rabies constitutes a public health hazard. As a rabies area, Sonoma County and its city governments must comply with California’s Health and Safety Code.
• NGO is the acronym for a non-government organization.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 3 • Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a legal agreement that specifies responsibilities, obligations, and privileges between entities. • A Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) is a legal contract between two or more public agencies, like cities or counties, that allows them to cooperate on shared services or powers. These agreements enable agencies to combine resources and expertise to achieve goals that might be difficult or impossible for a single agency to accomplish alone.

METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury visited the shelters, reviewed animal data, budgets, websites, service contracts, city council minutes and memoranda and coverage provided by print and social media. The Grand Jury researched industry standards for animal care and shelter design and interviewed the complainant, other NBAS clients, and representatives from the following organizations:
• Sonoma County Animal Services (SCAS)
• Humane Society of Sonoma County (HSSC)
• North Bay Animal Services (NBAS)
• Rohnert Park Animal Shelter (RPAS)
• The Cities of Cloverdale, Windsor, Healdsburg, Rohnert Park, Sonoma, Sebastopol, Petaluma, and Santa Rosa
• The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors

BACKGROUND
A citizen complaint regarding North Bay Animal Shelter (NBAS) prompted this investigation by the 2024-2025 Civil Grand Jury. Among the alleged shortcomings were unacceptable shelter conditions and failure to comply with state laws that mandate humane care, vaccination and licensing of dogs, quarantine and tracking of dangerous animals, and spay/neuter surgery of animals prior to placement in foster or adoptive homes. NBAS provides animal control and shelter services to four of Sonoma County’s nine cities comprising more than 20% of its residents. Its contracts with three cities require that it comply with all relevant laws and that the Petaluma shelter shall be maintained in compliance with U.C. Davis Standards of Care for Shelter Animals. The current industry guidelines for standards of care (now used by U.C. Davis) are published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians. 1 The fourth city requires that it
perform at the highest industry standards. The complaint alleged multiple violations of these terms and an absence of city oversight to ensure compliance.

The Grand Jury broadened its focus to explore how Sonoma County and its nine city governments provide legally mandated animal control and care. Its approach was guided, in part, by a 2012 study of animal services and subsequent updates undertaken for the Board of Supervisors by the Department of Health Services (DHS).2 These studies map existing services, identify best practices, and explore alternative governance models to provide consistent, costeffective animal services. In exploring alternative forms of governance, the 2012 study suggested 1 https://jsmcah.org/index.php/jasv/issue/view/2
2 https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5646253&GUID=DF621026-2216-4648-87CE0C61C0A20014&Options=&Search= Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 4 either a joint powers agreement (JPA) or a county-wide public/private partnership. It noted that without a mechanism for oversight, there would be risks of inconsistent service. The current situation with NBAS is evidence that this was a valid concern.

Subsequent reports have documented the continuous improvement of SCAS, the public agency that serves the 66% of county residents who reside in the unincorporated areas, the City of Healdsburg, and the City of Santa Rosa.3 Conspicuously absent from these reports was a discussion of what happens in the remaining third of the county. This omission became the focus of extensive research by the Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury also revisited recommendations that were made by the 2017-2018 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury in its report titled: The Evacuation and Sheltering of Animals During the Firestorm of October 2017.
4 Through interviews and public documents, the Grand Jury determined that the recommended actions have been largely accomplished. The Director of Animal Services now serves as the animal liaison for emergency operations planning. An Animals in Disaster Response Plan has been annexed to the Sonoma County Emergency Operations Plan.
5 Several MOUs have been adopted, and others are pending with NGOs to specify their roles as emergency responders. Work is underway to establish a regional partnership encompassing Sonoma, Marin, Napa, Lake, and Mendocino Counties. Agreements are in place with Code 3 Associates6and the American Association of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Regrettably, not all cities have developed municipal emergency response plans and NBAS has no defined role as the agency responsible for animal control for four of the County’s nine cities.

Provision of animal care and compliance with state and local animal regulations is a large and growing challenge for city and county governments. A Forbes report of pet ownership found that some 66% of U.S. households now include a pet. About a third of U.S. households have more than one pet.
7 Based on the Pet Ownership Calculator provided by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sonoma County is home to approximately 113,000 dogs and 100,000 pet cats.8 Feral cats and other domestic and wild animals add to this population.

A study by Pew Research found that 51% of respondents consider their companion animals to be members of the family, but along with the benefits of companionship and comfort come responsibilities both for owners and for county and city governments. These responsibilities are codified in state, county, and municipal codes that require humane treatment of animals and address risks that dogs pose for public health and safety (See Appendix A). County and city governments are responsible for enforcement of these laws through their designated Animal Control Officers.

Since 1987, detection of endemic rabies among bats and small mammals has caused every California county to be declared a Rabies Area. In 2024, the virus was detected in Sonoma County bat and fox populations. In a Rabies Area, dog owners and county and city governments are required to comply with legal obligations set forth in the Food and Agricultural section of 3 https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5646253&GUID=DF621026-2216-4648-87CE0C61C0A20014&Options=&Search= 4 https://sonoma.courts.ca.gov/system/files/grandjuryanimalservicesreport5-30-18.pdf 5 https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/administrative-support-and-fiscal-services/emergency-management/plans 6 https://code3associates.org/
7 https://www.forbes.com/advisor/pet-insurance/pet-ownership-statistics 8 https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/AHFSS/Animal_Health/eprs/docs/pet_ownership_calculator.pdf Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 5 California Government Codes, the Penal Code, Civil Code, the Corporations Code, and Health and Safety Code.

Laws Governing Animal Services
Penal Code §597 requires each county and city government to ensure that all animals in its jurisdiction are treated in a humane manner.

Health and Safety §121690 (a) requires pet owners to maintain current rabies vaccinations for dogs over three months of age and license dogs over the age of four months. Licensing is the mechanism to ensure timely rabies vaccination. Animal control agencies enforce this law. The county health officer is required to collect county-wide data and submit reports to the state to document the level of county-wide licensing compliance. A Sonoma County Ordinance also requires vaccination of cats although licensing is optional except for the City of Rohnert Park.

Health and Safety §121690 (f) (1) requires each county or city government to provide dog vaccination clinics or arrange for dog vaccination at clinics operated by veterinary groups or associations for a charge not to exceed the actual cost.

California Code of Regulation §2606.4 sets forth vaccination and licensing procedures and reporting requirements for any city or county government in a declared rabies area.

Food and Ag §30503 mandates that no public animal control agency or shelter, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group shall sell or give away to a new owner any dog or cat that has not been spayed or neutered. (A veterinarian may approve a temporary delay when required by the dog’s health.) While not required by the state mandated rabies control plan, Sonoma County recognizes the role of spay/neuter programs to reduce the population of unowned and stray animals that are less likely to be vaccinated and more likely to roam, fight or bite, potentially spreading rabies. The county mandates sterilization of pit bull breeds and of dogs running at large.9 SCAS supports spay/neuter for low-income pet owners and partners with Forgotten Felines to spay/neuter Community Cats through its Trap/Neuter/Return program.
10 A table is provided in Appendix A that summarizes animal-related regulations referenced in this report.

Industry Standards for Shelter Facilities and Care of Shelter Animals The Association of Shelter Veterinarians publishes Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters which are widely accepted as industry standards. Best Practices cited in the Sonoma County 2012 Animal Services Report are based on the first edition of this document which was produced with input from U.C. Davis shelter veterinarians.

In making assessments of animal care and shelter management and maintenance during shelter visits, Jurors referenced the 2022 Second Edition of the guidelines11 and a 2023 Checklist of Key 9https://library.municode.com/ca/sonoma_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH5SOCOANREOR_ARTXI VMASPNEALDORULAALPIBU_S5-
170MASPNEALDOLA#:~:text=Article%20XIV.%20%2D%20Mandatory%20Spay%20and%20Neutering,Running %20At%20Large%20and%20All%20Pit%20Bulls.
10 https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/health-and-human-services/health-services/divisions/public-health/animalservices/spay-and-neuter 11 https: https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/health-and-human-services/health-services/divisions/public-health/animalservices/spay-and-neuter//www.aspcapro.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/asvguidelinessecondedition-2022.pdf Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 6 Statements.
12 Each of the 553 actionable statements made in this 64-page document is presented as unacceptable, must, should, or ideal. The statements are presented in 13 sections covering all aspects of shelter care. The Grand Jury focused on statements where compliance could be assessed based on physical inspection, interviews, or document review.

An over-arching admonition made throughout the shelter standards is that “…Operating beyond an organization’s capacity for care is unacceptable.” Certain other statements, paraphrased below, are included in multiple sections of the guidelines:

Animal Care
• A formal relationship with a veterinarian must be in place to ensure oversight of medical and surgical care in the shelter.
• Veterinarians should be integrally involved with development of the shelter’s development and updates to written policies and protocols for animal care. • Each animal must receive at least a cursory health assessment by trained personnel at intake to check for signs of infectious disease or problems that require emergency care. • Medical, surgical, and behavioral services for foster animals must be provided in a manner that promotes animal welfare and minimizes length of stay (at the shelter). • Shelters must have comprehensive protocols in place for recognizing and mitigating stress and associated negative emotions including fear, anxiety, and frustration. • Foster care providers should be given clear instructions about how and when to access emergency and after-hours care.
• Shelters should sterilize all animals before adoption or ensure that they will be sterilized after their outcome. [NOTE: In California this is mandated by Food and Ag §30503.] Shelter Staffing
• Shelters must have adequate, qualified personnel.
• Shelters must provide training for each shelter task and continuing education must be provided for all personnel to improve skills and maintain credentials. • Continuing education must be provided for all personnel to improve skills and maintain credentials.

Shelter Maintenance
• Written protocols for animal care and shelter sanitation must be developed and documented in sufficient detail to achieve and maintain accepted industry standards. • Ventilation must be maintained at a high enough rate to ensure adequate air quality in all areas of the shelter including in the primary enclosure. • Noise must be minimized in animal housing areas.
• All food must be protected from wildlife, rodents and insects. 12 https://www.sheltervet.org/assets/docs/2022-ASV-GL-Checklist.pdf Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 7 • Shelters responding to disasters as part of a coordinated response should draft memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with their governmental and nongovernmental response partners.

DISCUSSION
Decentralization and Fragmentation of Animal Services
As dictated by California state law, Sonoma County, and each of its nine cities determines how it will meet California’s animal-related regulations. The county and each city government is responsible for implementing its own Rabies Control Plan. Central to rabies control is legally mandated vaccination and licensing. The ten governments have set different license and service fees and fee concessions for animals within their jurisdictions. These fees are presented in Appendix B. The resulting patchwork of fees and concessions is confusing to the public. It complicates efficient, cost-effective license enforcement and collection of license fees. It’s confusing to pay one fee when a friend in a nearby city pays another. Agreement among the county and city governments on a common fee schedule and online license management vendor would resolve these issues.

SCAS provides animal control and animal shelter services to 66% of Sonoma County’s population. NBAS serves 21%. The remaining 13% receive animal control services through local police departments and shelter care through the Rohnert Park Animal Shelter, the Humane Society of Sonoma County and numerous private and non-profit organizations that provide shelter, adoption, and spay/neuter programs for Sonoma County pets. Among these, the privately funded Pets Lifeline, Dogwood, and Forgotten Felines stand out for their adoption programs and Trap/Neuter/Return (TNR) work to reduce community/feral cat populations. • Sonoma County Animal Services (SCAS) operates within DHS to provide animal control to the 66% of county residents who reside in the unincorporated areas, and the Cities of Healdsburg and Santa Rosa. It also shelters pets from the City of Sonoma and is responsible for the full range of domestic and wild animals. It has overall responsibility for implementing the rabies control plan and emergency animal evacuations. • North Bay Animal Services (NBAS) contracts with the Cities of Cloverdale, Windsor, Sebastopol, and Petaluma to provides animal control field services and shelter to more than 20% of Sonoma County.
• Rohnert Park Animal Shelter (RPAS) is owned and managed by the City of Rohnert Park.

The shelter serves both Rohnert Park and Cotati in cooperation with the cities’ police departments. Municipal funding is augmented by a non-profit foundation. • The Humane Society of Sonoma County (HSSC) cares for animals from Healdsburg, citizen surrendered animals from throughout the county, and transfers from other shelters.

It operates a veterinary hospital that provides pet care for low-income owners, including low-cost spay/neuter surgery and routine vaccinations (but not rabies vaccinations).

HSSC currently outsources animal control for Healdsburg to SCAS. It is primarily funded by private contributions and grants and is overseen by its board of directors. An MOU with the county for emergency response is pending.
• The City of Sonoma Police Department provides residents with animal control, including licensing. Shelter care is provided as needed by SCAS and Pets Lifeline.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 8 Common Challenges to Animal Service Providers
This investigation and a review of Civil Grand Jury reports from nearby counties revealed animal services to be a costly, labor and facilities intensive endeavor. Several issues were mentioned repeatedly and were observed, to a greater or lesser degree, in Sonoma County facilities.

Collaboration among the county and cities could ameliorate many of these challenges, which include:
• Underfunding: Animal services compete with other compelling needs for public tax dollars. Limited county and city funds are augmented by license and service fees and fines. Collection of these fees can be difficult and time consuming for staff. • License Enforcement: License compliance is important, both for rabies control, and because it generates needed income, but agencies struggle to achieve high rates of compliance. A study conducted by the on-line license management vendor, DocuPet, found an average nationwide compliance rate of only 23%. The highest rate found by the Grand Jury was 50%. In Sonoma County, 2024 rates range from 12% to 31% as shown in Appendix C. Among the obstacles to improved licensing compliance that were identified by DocuPet was a lack of public outreach to explain: 1) the importance of vaccination and licensing for rabies control; 2) the legal requirement for owners to license their dogs; and 3) the benefit of returning a lost pet regardless of where it has wandered. • Aging Facilities: Constant maintenance and costly upgrades are required to ensure that aging facilities meet the health and safety needs of animals, staff, and visitors. Operating in aging, outgrown facilities makes daily operations more difficult. • Insufficient Veterinary Services: A nationwide veterinarian shortage limits access to needed professional care, including affordable rabies vaccination and spay/neuter clinics that are mandated for public safety and population control. Demand has driven up costs and reduced availability of pro bono services.
• Insufficient Staffing and Personnel Turnover: Shelter staff are stretched to accomplish a wide range of duties, ranging from animal care to data entry, website management, license management, and interaction with the public. Understaffing and turnover of experienced staff and volunteers requires effective recruitment, supervision, and training and professional development programs that can exceed organizational capacity. • Public Demands for “No Kill” Outcomes: Public sentiment can fail to recognize differences between private agencies that can limit acceptance to adoptable animals and public shelters that are obligated to accept animals regardless of medical or behavioral issues that may preclude live outcomes. The resulting negative impact on public perception can undermine needed support.
• A Lack of Centralized Communication and Data Sharing: Without the means to communicate and coordinate activities, agencies are hampered in meeting regularly occurring needs such as rehoming lost pets, coordinating responses to calls for animal control, and sharing knowledge and resources. It impairs the ability to prepare accurate state-mandated licensing reports, track dangerous animals, or mount a fully coordinated, county-wide disaster response.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 9 Tax-Supported Agencies Providing Animal Control and/or Shelter Sonoma County Animal Services (SCAS) operates within the Department of Health Services to provide animal services to the 66% of county residents who reside in the unincorporated areas and the Cities of Santa Rosa and Healdsburg. It also has an MOU to shelter companion animals from the City of Sonoma.

Scope of Service: In addition to companion animals, SCAS is responsible for farm animals, livestock and wild animals. As a government agency it is required to accept and manage animals regardless of their physical condition or adoptability. It enforces local, state, and federal laws that pertain to animal care and public safety. SCAS administers the state-mandated rabies control program which includes facilitating rabies vaccinations and managing bite reports and quarantine of dangerous animals. It engages legal services to handle cases involving animal bites and incidents of neglect and abuse cases. It collects and compiles license compliance data from all jurisdictions and submits county-wide reports to the state. SCAS is also the lead agency for animal emergency evacuation planning and coordination of emergency response.

Facilities: Demand for pet sheltering sometimes exceeds capacity of the 100-kennel shelter that was built in the late 1980s and was last renovated in 2001. It must also provide housing for a full range of domestic and wild animals. On October 6, 2015, the BOS approved funds for an assessment of the facility and design of needed improvements. After being interrupted by Covid, the design process is funded and underway. Projects will be done in phases starting with ventilation improvement and noise reduction in the kennels and upgrades to the entry area to enhance interactions with the public.

Staffing: Thirty-two full-time positions include certified veterinary technicians, ten licensed animal control officers, other specialists, and public service and operations staff. It has a contract veterinarian six hours/day, five days a week and hires extra veterinary services at times.

It also has a network of veterinarians who volunteer in emergencies. Volunteers provide essential support for animal and shelter care. Volunteers, shelter staff and animal control officers have access to extensive training and continuing education.

Veterinarians, assisted by vet techs conduct intake examinations, care for sheltered and fostered animals and perform spay/neuter surgery. Animals are vaccinated at intake and are sterilized prior to placement in foster or adoptive homes. Low cost spay/neuter services are provided to community members though limited resources create long lead times for surgeries.

Revenue and Cost of Service: Seventy-five to eighty percent of the SCAS $6.7 million budget comes from Sonoma County, Santa Rosa, and Healdsburg taxes. This is supplemented by collection of license and service fees and tax-deductible donations. Collection rates for service fees are low. Follow up is staff intensive. The SCAS Director estimated an outstanding balance of as much as $2 million in service fees and penalties. As a county agency, SCAS is required to pay county salaries and benefits.

SCAS is nearing the end of a three-year contract with DocuPet for online license management. A $25,000 annual payment covers collection of license fees and fines and all correspondence, including sending timely renewal notices. The SCAS Director reported that service has been so efficient that it allowed a reduction to license fees while achieving the highest licensing rates in the county.

The SCAS budget of $6.7 million dollars provides an extensive range of animal control and shelter services for approximately 305,000 residents of Santa Rosa, Healdsburg, and Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 10 unincorporated Sonoma County. Santa Rosa’s $3,346,000 contract accounts for about 40% of animal control and shelter budget, or about $191,000 per 10,000 residents.

Rohnert Park Animal Shelter is owned and managed by the City of Rohnert Park through its Community Services Department.

Scope of Service: RPAS provides shelter care for companion animals for both Rohnert Park and Cotati. The two cities’ Police Departments provide animal control. RPAS has recently assumed licensing responsibility from the Rohnert Park Finance Department. It outsources license management to DocuPet and shares data with SCAS. DocuPet retains a small fee for each license. It maintains records and sends renewal reminders. Rohnert Park is the only city that requires cat licensing. Cotati offers a one-time voluntary cat license.

Facilities: Like other shelters, RPAS was built in the 1990s, but it underwent a major renovation in 2005 and has had many smaller upgrades. It is immaculately maintained with 35 dog runs, “flexible capacity” for cats, rabbits, and other small mammals. Designated areas for surgeries, food preparation, and laundry are clean and well-organized.

RPAS has earned certification as a Fear Free Shelter by implementing facility improvements and animal management practices that minimize stress and optimize safety for pets and humans.

These include using sound baffles for noise control and minimizing unnecessary disruption that can lead to loud outbursts. Potential adopters view videos of available pets and meet those they wish to interview in a pleasant, private space away from other animals. Positive animal behaviors are reinforced with small treats. Instead of the frantic barking Jurors experienced in other shelters, they were met with calm, friendly, and noticeably more “adoptable” animals.

Staffing: Staffing includes the supervisor, who holds animal control, vet tech, and euthanasia certifications; a second vet tech; and a community service assistant. A contract veterinarian visits twice a week to provide animal care and perform surgeries. Every animal of required age or size is spayed/neutered and fully vaccinated prior to placement in a foster or adoptive home. Microchipping is free for Rohnert Park and Cotati residents. While the shelter offers low-cost spay/neuter services to its community members, the wait time for an appointment can be long.

Fifteen to 20 of the 100 volunteers schedule regular shifts to assist staff with animal care and shelter maintenance. Many more assist with special projects and activities such as adoption events.

Revenue and Cost of Services: The RPAS budget of $565,000 provides a high standard of shelter care to a population of 44,000 at a cost of $128,409 per 10,000. In addition to its municipal funding, the shelter benefits from an independent foundation that raises funds for shelter improvements and to support a variety of programs that support the community of pet owners. These include pet collars and leashes for newly adopted pets and Silver Paws funding to offset the cost of pet ownership for low-income seniors.

The Humane Society of Sonoma County (HSSC) is included in this list of key agencies because of the limited tax revenue it receives through a contract with the City of Healdsburg to oversee animal control and shelter care. HSSC provides the shelter care and sub-contracts animal control.

A $104,000 animal control sub-contract with NBAS, that was near expiration, was terminated and a new $114,000 contract with SCAS took effect on March 1, 2025.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 11 Scope of Service: HSSC cares for animals from Healdsburg, citizen surrendered pets, and transfers from other shelters. Because it is not a government agency HSSC can be selective in its admission and focuses on adoptable animals.

Facilities: HSSC operates in an immaculate, well-maintained facility purposely built to a high standard of shelter design with donated funds. An adjacent building houses a veterinary hospital that provides pet care for low-income owners and offers low-cost spay/neuter surgery and routine vaccinations. It does not offer rabies clinics and does not manage licensing.

Staffing: HSSC staff includes veterinary professionals and development and communication professionals who manage its fundraising, community relations, and a website that provides a wealth of information on animal care and services throughout the county. Other staff provide maintenance, cleaning, and sanitation. Multiple well-trained volunteers are on site at any given time, interacting as team members with animals and staff. Training and continuing education are provided at all levels.

Funding: HSSC is primarily funded by private contributions and grants and is overseen by its board of directors. The Grand Jury did not pursue detailed budget information because of its focus on the county and municipal agencies.

The City of Sonoma Police Department provides residents with animal control, including licensing which is done on an in-person, walk-in basis. The licensing rate in 2024 was ~15%.

Shelter care is provided as needed by SCAS and Pets Lifeline.

North Bay Animal Services (NBAS) was incorporated as a 501-(c)-3 organization in 2018 to operate the city-owned Petaluma shelter and provide the city with animal control services. It succeeded Petaluma Animal Services in this role.

Scope of Service: NBAS currently provides animal control and shelter services to more than 20% of the county’s residents through contracts with the Cities of Cloverdale, Windsor, Sebastopol, and Petaluma. It also contracts with Calistoga and operates the Clearlake shelter.

Responsibilities include responding to field calls for domestic and wild animals, providing shelter and veterinary care for companion and small farm animals in compliance with industry standards, managing pet licensing and reporting data to the county, and complying with all animal-related laws on behalf of the cities it serves.

Facilities: NBAS rents the city-owned Petaluma shelter for $1/year. The facility is aging and suffering from deferred maintenance. Shelter capacity was described as 40-50 dogs and up to 100 cats. The NBAS contract with Petaluma requires the non-profit to provide routine maintenance. The city is responsible for major repairs and improvements. In recent years, these have included roof work.

Staffing: The Director and eight staff serve the four Sonoma County cities from the Petaluma shelter and a storefront in Windsor. One Animal Control Officer is assigned to Windsor and Cloverdale. A second ACO works from Petaluma. The Executive Director is also an ACO who reported that calls are monitored 24/7. Shelter staff also include shelter technicians for cleaning and basic animal care, customer service, a social media position, one “coordinator” each for dogs and cats. No specific qualifications for shelter care of animals were listed either on the staff list provided to the Grand Jury, or on the bios that appear on the agency website.

Revenue and Cost of Service: Annual contract revenue totals $1,233,000 from the four Sonoma County cities, with a combined population of 100,000. At only $123,300 per 10,000, Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 12 this is even less than the RPAS budget that does not include the cost of animal control field operations.

Grand Jury Observations about NBAS Performance
NBAS’s city contracts require it to comply with all applicable laws for animal shelters, including quarantine and tracking of dangerous animals, sterilization of animals placed in foster or adoptive homes, and enforcement of licensing/vaccination for rabies control. The Grand Jury identified significant failures to comply with these laws and other terms of its city contracts:
• Multiple professionals and private citizens stated that NBAS places unaltered animals in foster and “foster-to-adopt” homes and that appointments for legally mandated spay/neuter surgery can be delayed for many months. The Grand Jury obtained an email which confirmed that NBAS was aware of multiple similar complaints about delays in sterilization and vaccination.
• NBAS doesn’t facilitate rabies vaccination. State law assigns responsibility for vaccination and licensing both to dog owners and every government jurisdiction. Cities are responsible for enforcing these laws through their designated Animal Control Officers, which is NBAS in the case of Petaluma, Cloverdale, Windsor and Sebastopol. • Jurors were told that NBAS received 350 to 370 bite calls a year, but the Jurors were unable to secure evidence that legally mandated bite reports had been filed or that potentially dangerous animals were being quarantined as required by state law. This is a matter of concern for public safety and poses the potential for city liability resulting from dog bites.
• NBAS does a poor job of facilitating dog licensure and license renewal. NBAS licensing data for 2024 showed only 12% compliance across NBAS cities compared with 23% in Santa Rosa and 31% in unincorporated Sonoma County. (See Appendix C for licensing rates as estimated based on a state methodology.)
• NBAS advised the Grand Jury that animals are taken to one of several veterinarians when in need of emergency or routine care, so there is no supervising veterinarian in charge of animal medicine. The shelter has no single veterinarian contracted to consult on written protocols for physical, conditions, sanitation, or general animal care at the shelter. • No NBAS staff member is identified as having had the training and oversight by a veterinarian that is required to conduct physical and behavioral assessment of incoming animals.
• Employees serving in the key positions of Dog Coordinator and Cat Coordinator were described as “experienced,” but without any specific veterinary certifications included in their bios on the NBAS website.
• There is no documentation of training or continuing education of staff or volunteers. • The workspace for food preparation observed by the Grand Jury is cramped and cluttered; open bags of pet food, some stacked on the floor, are accessible to rodents and other pests, in violation of shelter standards.
• During visits to the shelter, the Grand Jury experienced an overpowering foul odor that suggests that the ventilation system is unlikely to be providing air quality consistent with the health and safety of both animals and humans.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 13 • NBAS does not have a written plan for emergency response. Nor does it have an MOU with the county to specify its role as an emergency responder.

NBAS is contractually required to maintain its facility either “in compliance with industry standards,” or U.C. Davis Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. The list above demonstrates that it fails to comply with industry standards for animal care, shelter management, and maintenance.

The NBAS Executive Director has an extraordinary—and unrealistic—range of responsibilities.

The Director manages staff at the Sonoma County locations, the City of Calistoga, and a second shelter in Clearlake. Although NBAS reports 24/7 call monitoring, multiple sources noted that reaching the shelter and securing a response to messages is extremely difficult.

The Director manages the organization’s operations, its finances and shelter data. The Director is responsible for negotiating and fulfilling the city contracts, which include complying with all applicable laws and maintaining the shelter in compliance with industry standards.

The Director also maintains the agency website where essential information, including online pet licensing, is absent, out-of-date, or inaccessible due to broken links. License renewal notices are not currently being sent, reportedly because of the cost and staff time. Data provided to the Grand Jury showed that the number of license renewals fell from 1,816 in 2023 to 733 in 2024 resulting in a loss of revenue and undermining rabies vaccination enforcement. (See Appendix C for License Compliance data.)
Two or three of an estimated 40-60 volunteers assist staff during each of the morning and afternoon shifts. Unlike other shelters, the number of volunteers has reportedly not recovered since it dropped during COVID.

In short, the Grand Jury concluded that NBAS is extended beyond its financial and organizational capacity to comply with either its contracts or applicable laws, a circumstance which, according to shelter standards, is unacceptable. It is surviving despite a perfect storm of underfunding, an aging facility, insufficient use of veterinary services, and a staff that is too small, lacking in continuing education and relevant certification, and wearing too many hats.

City Oversight of Animal Services is Inadequate
Each of the four cities that contract with NBAS have failed to adequately monitor or evaluate the quality of service being provided by NBAS. None of these four cities can be sure they are fulfilling their legal responsibility to facilitate vaccinations, report dog bites to the State of California, ensure that dogs are licensed, or require that sheltered animals be spayed or neutered prior to release for adoption.

Since NBAS has been the animal services contractor, only one city official reported ever visiting the Petaluma shelter, and that was just once. Without periodic inspections, how can these cities be sure they are getting the service they are contracted to receive? None of the city contracts require NBAS to submit reports that contain quantifiable performance criteria in order to evaluate compliance. How are the cities evaluating contract compliance without any reporting? Only Petaluma requires reporting (annually) to the City Council, and in the 7 years that NBAS has been the animal services contractor, only 3 reports have been submitted—the last one was filed in 2022. Some contracts specify an acceptable response time for calls for animal control, but NBAS does not track response time, and the cities are not requiring it.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 14 Jurors questioned how contracts were awarded. It became clear that NBAS proposals offered a full range of services for prices below those of competitors. Most of the multi-year contracts, including one for 10 years, are for flat annual payments without escalation clauses to accommodate increased costs.

It is unsurprising that the cities did not question whether NBAS bids were sufficient to provide contract services. The low cost would be desirable if the terms of the contracts were being fulfilled. However, they are not. What the Jurors did not anticipate was the uniform lack of oversight and outright denial about NBAS shortcomings that was revealed in every city interview.

Each city official interviewed by the Grand Jury stated that they weren’t aware of significant issues with NBAS. Based on multiple interviews, the Grand Jury confirmed the original complaint, that NBAS is operating with insufficient oversight by its board of directors or the cities with which it contracts.

CONCLUSIONS
• Most Sonoma County residents are receiving animal services that approach, achieve, or even exceed industry standards. However, this is not the case for the over 20% affected by city contracts with NBAS.
• The existing decentralization of animal control and shelter services and the lack of oversight by the county, the four Sonoma County cities with NBAS contracts, or by the agency’s board of directors, has allowed unacceptable performance by NBAS to persist without intervention.
• The NBAS proposals on which its contracts are based promise an extensive range of services for a cost that is far below the budgeted costs of either SCAS or RPAS. The result is that NBAS is inadequately funded to fulfill its responsibilities. • In recent years, as an underfunded and underperforming non-profit agency, NBAS has failed to provide animal services which are compliant with state mandates and contract provisions. The 2012 DHS report cautioned that insufficient oversight could lead to this situation.
• The existing fragmentation of services is inefficient and confusing for members of the public. It makes it difficult to know where to call in an emergency, or how to access needed services. Fees for licensing and services vary, as does the range and quality of information available on websites and the ability to contact a shelter or animal control officer.
• The lack of shared data and communication channels poses unique challenges for animal control agencies, the County Department of Health Services, and the Office of Emergency Management. It hampers compliance with legally mandated management and reporting of licensing data and the quarantine and tracking of potentially dangerous animals. It makes it more difficult for owners to locate lost pets. It can delay or disrupt response to emergency situations.
• Following a series of disastrous fires and floods, the County appointed the SCAS Director as animal liaison to participate in development of the Sonoma County Emergency Operations Plan. In 2018, it added an animal disaster response plan with Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 15 defined procedures and established MOUs to define roles for key NGOs. NBAS is not among these partners and not all cities have developed such plans. • Funding constraints and a lack of coordination among agencies leaves most municipal and non-profit shelters struggling to accomplish support functions that are essential to all such as timely license renewals and invoicing for fees, staff and volunteer training, and maintenance of websites to provide effective public outreach. Thoughtful centralization of some or all these functions could lead to improved, cost-efficient solutions, and increased revenue collection.
• Rabies control efforts are undermined by failure to achieve high levels of pet licensing and implement spay/neuter programs for population control. Failure to collect license and shelter service fees results in the loss of revenue to support animal services.

COMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury recognized the steady progress achieved by SCAS to comply with best practices, and other recommendations contained in the 2012 DHS report. This progress is acknowledged in subsequent reports to the Board of Supervisors and is, in part, due to the Board’s on-going oversight and support of improved animal services.

The exceptional volunteer and financial support provided to the Rohnert Park Animal Shelter by its community is testimony to the value of well-run, conveniently located facilities. At the Humane Society of Sonoma County, we experienced an independent non-profit shelter with minimal public funding whose public engagement and service on behalf of animals extends across city and county boundaries.

While our investigation did not extend to the dozens of private and non-profit programs caring for Sonoma County animals, we would be remiss not to call out the outstanding shelter and adoption services provided by Pets Lifeline and Dogwood and the exemplary work of Forgotten Felines to control populations of pet and feral cats. These non-profit organizations depend on the generosity and volunteer support of the community. Our hats are off to all those who care for the county’s companion animals.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 16 FINDINGS
F1. Failure by the county and its nine cities to adopt recommendations in the 2012 DHS Animal Services Report has left Sonoma County animal service agencies operating without shared standards, communication channels, data sharing or oversight.

F2. Services provided to the four Sonoma County cities by North Bay Animal Services are non-compliant either with state laws or industry standards for the care of shelter animals as specified in its contracts.

F3. A lack of coordination between SCAS and NBAS is an obstacle to a fully coordinated implementation of the county-wide disaster response plan for animal evacuations.

F4. Insufficient funding and staffing make it difficult for some agencies to provide effective training for staff and volunteers.

F5. Insufficient funding and staffing make it difficult for agencies to maintain websites and social media content required for effective public relations.

F6. Having multiple different fee structures for animal licenses and services is confusing to the public and complicates billing and collection of license fees and fines.

F7. Failure to achieve high levels of licensing in all government jurisdictions and provide access to shared information undermines mandated rabies control, makes it more difficult to return lost pets, and results in a loss of revenue.

F8. Based on SCAS data, uniform adoption of online licensing management through DocuPet (or a comparable vendor) would increase county-wide licensing rates and enhance compliance with state law.

F9. Failure to promote the benefits and legal requirement to license dogs, and failing consistently to send license renewal reminders, contribute to low license compliance and loss of revenue.

F10. Making centralized training resources available could enhance performance of animal services employees and volunteers.

F11. Insufficient oversight either by the cities or by the organization’s board of directors has allowed NBAS to be non-compliant with state law and the terms of its contracts by:
failing to effectively manage licensing and renewals; failing to offer legally mandated rabies vaccination clinics; failing to perform legally mandated spay/neuter of animals prior to placement; failing to consistently submit bite reports to the county health officer (through SCAS); failing to maintain the Petaluma animal shelter in compliance with industry standards; and failing to collect accurate data and provide reports that demonstrate compliance with contract terms.

F12. A lack of responsiveness to phone calls has eroded public confidence in the ability of NBAS to respond in a timely manner to calls for service or follow-up.

F13. While NBAS is responsible for general maintenance of the shelter, the City of Petaluma is not exercising due diligence with regard to facilities maintenance and repair, which may include an adequate ventilation system based upon the Grand Jury’s observations during its visits.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 17 R1. By November 1, 2025, the Board of Supervisors will direct DHS to establish an Animal Services Task Force comprising county, city, and shelter representatives to revisit the 2012 DHS Animal Services Report and recommend a governance structure for animal services that will: 1) provide county-wide oversight to ensure compliance with State Law; 2) standardize fees and engage a common licensing vendor to enhance public health and safety, licensing rates and revenue, and; 3) achieve economic efficiencies through shared resources. (F1, F3, F4-F6 and F9-F10)
R2. By January 1, 2026, each of Sonoma County’s 9 cities will delegate one or more representatives to participate in the county-wide Animal Services Task Force convened by DHS. (F1)
R3. By January 1, 2026, the director or supervisor of SCAS, HSSC, RPAS, and NBAS will commit to participating in the county-wide Animal Services Task Force. (F1) R4. By May 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors will direct DHS to launch a county-wide public information campaign in cooperation with the cities to explain the legal imperative and benefits of licensing pets. The campaign will commence no later than July 1, 2026. (F7-F9)
R5. By November 1, 2025, each city contracting with North Bay Animal Services will inspect and evaluate the shelter condition, and evaluate the shelter operation and animal control services, to determine whether NBAS is complying with legal mandates and other terms of its contract. (F2, F11-F12)
R6. By September 30, 2025, each of the cities that contracts with NBAS will require quarterly reports that include data and performance criteria sufficient to evaluate compliance with its contract and all relevant laws. (F2, F11) R7. By November 1, 2025, the Petaluma City Council will direct staff to implement a facilities assessment of the city-owned shelter and submit a report of findings related to the adequacy of the HVAC system and any improvements that may be required for the health and safety of animals and humans. (F13)
R8. By June 1, 2026, the City of Petaluma will correct any identified ventilation and/or other defects that put animal and/or human health and safety at risk. (F13)

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the grand jury requires responses as follows:
• Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (R1, R4, and F1, F3-F10) • Department of Health Services Director (R1, R4, and F1, F3-F10) • The Cloverdale City Council (R1-R2, R4-6, F1-F3, F6-F11) • The Cotati City Council (R1-R2, R4-R5, and F1 and F3-F10) • The Healdsburg City Council (R1-R2, R4-7, F1-F3, F6-F11) • The Petaluma City Council (R1-R2, R4-8, F1-F3, F6-F13) • The Rohnert Park City Council (R1-R2, R4-R5, F1, F3-F10) • The Santa Rosa City Council (R1-R2, R4-R5, F1, F3-F10) Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 18 • The Sebastopol City Council (R1-R2, R4-6, F1-F3, F6-F11) • The Sonoma City Council (R1-R2, R4-R5, F1, F3-F10)
• The Windsor City Council (R1-R2, R4-6, F1-F3, F6-F11) The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that their comments and responses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.

INVITED RESPONSES
The Grand Jury invites the following to respond:
• Sonoma County Animal Services Director (R1, R4, R5, F1, F3-F10) • The Petaluma City Manager (R1-R2, R4-8, F1-F3, F6-F13) • Humane Society of Sonoma County (R1, R3-5, F1, F3-12) • North Bay Animal Shelter Executive Director (R1, R4-R8, F1-F13) • Rohnert Park Animal Shelter Supervisor (R1, R3-5, and F1, F3-12) Responses must be submitted to the presiding judge of the Sonoma County Superior Court in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code section 933.05. Responses must include the information required by section 933.05.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• The Association of Shelter Veterinarians, Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. Second Edition, December 2022.
https://www.aspcapro.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/asvguidelinessecondedition-2022.pdf • The Association of Shelter Veterinarians, Sanitation in Animal Shelters. September 1, 2023.
https://www.sheltervet.org/assets/docs/5__Sanitation_Final_06AUG2024.pdf • County of Sonoma—Department of Health Services, Sonoma County Animal Care and Control Governance Model Review and Best Practices, August 2012. https://sonoma-county.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=243&meta_id=94249 • Animal Services Facility Needs Assessment Report to the Board of Supervisors, September 12, 2023
https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=12398 • County of Sonoma – Animal Services, Sonoma County Animals in Disaster Response Plan, December 2018
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/Main%20County%20Site/Administrative%20Support%20%26%20Fiscal% 20Services/Emergency%20Management/Documents/Archive/Administration/Services/2147553654/SCA SAnimalAnnex%20FINAL%202018%20DEC.pdf
• State of California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State—January 1, 2023, and 2024, May 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/ Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 19 • California Department of Food and Agriculture, Pet Ownership Calculator https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/AHFSS/Animal_Health/eprs/docs/pet_ownership_calculator.pdf • 2017-2018 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury, The Evacuation and Sheltering of Animals During the Firestorm of October 2017.
https://sonoma.courts.ca.gov/system/files/grand-jury/gj-2017-2018-finalreport.pdf Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 20 APPENDIX A
Animal Related Regulations

ANIMAL CONTROL/SHELTERING
Civil Code §1834 Depositary of animals must provide food, shelter & veterinary care
Civil Code §1834.4 No animal shall be euthanized if it is adoptable
Corporations Code §14502 Humane Officers Appointment,
Reappointment & Training
Food and Ag §30503.5 Dog bite disclosure
Food and Ag §31105 The taking up and impounding of all dogs found running at large
Food and Ag §31108 Provide for holding period for lost animals Food and Ag §§31601-31626; §§31641-
31646
Dangerous and vicious dog
Penal Code §597 Humane treatment of animals
Penal Code §599(d) Policy on euthanasia of adoptable or treatable animal

LICENSING/MICROCHIPPING
Food and Ag §30502 € Dog license tags provide for the keeping of a record to identity of the dog owner
Food and Ag §30652 Use of fees for issuance of dog license tags and fines
Food and Ag §31752.1 Cats: Microchip implants requirement Health and Safety §121690 (a) Owner required to license any dog over the age of 4 months.

RABIES & VACCINATIONS
California Code of Regulation §2606 Rabies, requires reporting of bites and quarantine of animals
California Code of Regulation §2606.4 Officially declared rabies areas along with requirement of licensing and vaccination;
requires rabies control activities reporting
Health and Safety Code §121585 Definition of rabies area Health and Safety §121690 (a) - (e) Rabies Areas, licensing and vaccinations; duty of the governing body to provide for a
rabies control program
Health and Safety §121690 (f) Requires governments to provide rabies clinics

SPAY/NEUTER
Food and Ag §30503 Spay/neuter of dogs
Food and Ag §30503(a)(1) Spay/neuter of dogs prior to adoption Food and Ag §31751.3 Spay and neuter of cats prior to adoption Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 21 APPENDIX B
Dog License Fees*
City/Area Spayed/
Neutered
Intact
Animal
Unincorporated County $16 $19
Santa Rosa $16 $19
Cloverdale $20 $40
Healdsburg $15 $30
Petaluma $20 $25
Windsor $20
Sebastopol $20 $50
City of Sonoma $25 $50
Rohnert Park (Dogs & Cats) $18 $36
Cotati (Cats voluntary) $20 $40
*Jurisdictions also offer different concessions, e.g., for seniors, veterans, or multiple pets.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County 22 APPENDIX C
Dog Licensing Compliance Data
Area 2023-24
Population*
Estimated
# of
Dogs**
2023
Licenses
2024
Licenses
# % # %
Unincorporated 130,777 30,904 13,160 43% 9,726 31%
Santa Rosa 174,890 41,328 11,867 29% 9,629 23%
Total SCAS* 305,667 72,232 25,027 35% 19,355 27%
Cloverdale 8,710 2,058 617 30% 350 17%
Healdsburg 10,985 2,596 393 15% 282 11%
Petaluma 58,445 13,811 1,833 13% 1,488 11%
Sebastopol 7,295 1,724 230 13% 233 14%
Windsor 25,394 6,001 1,017 17% 822 14%
Total NBAS 110,829 26,190 4,090 16% 3,175 12%
Sonoma City 10,532 2,489 NA NA 368 15%
Rohnert Park 43,821 10,355 NA NA NA NA
Cotati 7,303 1,726 NA NA NA NA
Total Other 61,656 14,570
Countywide 478,152 112,992
*Population data source: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/ **Pet Calculator: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/AHFSS/Animal_Health/eprs/docs/pet_ownership_calculator.pdf License data provided by SCAS and NBAS
Note: NBAS contract with Healdsburg terminated 2/29/25
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Response to Grand Jury Report Form
Report Title: Animal Services in Sonoma County: Separate and Not Equal Report Date: June 13, 2025
Response by: Mary Gourley Title: Interim City Manager
Agency/Department Name: City of Sebastopol
FINDINGS:
[List numbers: ie. F1, F2] The Sebastopol City Council (R1-R2, R4-6, F1-F3, F6-F10) The Sebastopol City Council (R1-R2, R4-6, F1-F3, F6-F11) R1. By November 1,2025, the Board of Supervisors will direct DHS to establish an Animal Services Task Force comprising county, city, and shelter representatives to revisit the 2012 DHS Animal Services Report and recommend a governance structure for animal services that will: 1) provide county-wide oversight to ensure compliance with State Law; 2) standardize fees and engage a common licensing vendor to enhance public health and safety, licensing rates and revenue, and; 3) achieve economic efficiencies through shared resources. (Fl, F3, F4-F6 and F9-Fl0)
City Response: The City of Sebastopol agrees with Grand Jury Recommendation R1 and supports the establishment of an Animal Services Task Force by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, as outlined in the report. While the authority to carry out this recommendation rests with the Board of Supervisors, the City commits to participating in the Task Force and contributing to discussions on governance, service standards, and licensing practices, and will provide feedback and recommendations in a timely manner to support county-wide animal services improvements.

R2. By January l, 2026, each of Sonoma County's 9 cities will delegate one or more representatives to participate in the county-wide Animal Services Task Force convened by DHS. (Fl) City Response: The City of Sebastopol agrees with Grand Jury Recommendation R2 and will designate one or more representatives to participate in the county-wide Animal Services Task Force convened by the Department of Health Services (DHS) by the requested date of January 1, 2026.

The City is committed to active engagement in the Task Force to collaborate with other Sonoma County cities, county officials, and shelter representatives. City representatives will provide input and feedback to support the development of a coordinated governance structure, standardized fees, and efficient animal services across the county.

R4. By May 1,2026, the Board of Supervisors will direct DHS to launch a county-wide public information campaign in cooperation with the cities to explain the legal imperative and benefits of licensing pets. The campaign will commence no later than July 1,2026. (F7-F9) City Response: The City of Sebastopol acknowledges Grand Jury Recommendation R4 and supports the launch of a county-wide public information campaign by the Board of Supervisors and the Department of Health Services (DHS) to explain the legal requirements and benefits of licensing pets.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

The City is committed to cooperating with DHS and other Sonoma County cities to help design and disseminate accurate and effective messaging to the public. Sebastopol will assist in promoting the campaign within the community and encouraging pet owners to comply with licensing requirements, thereby supporting public health, safety, and responsible pet ownership.

R5. By November l, 2025, each city contracting with North Bay Animal Services will inspect and evaluate the shelter condition, and evaluate the shelter operation and animal control services, to determine whether NBAS is complying with legal mandates and other terms of its contract. (F2, Fl l-Fl2) City Response: The City of Sebastopol acknowledges Grand Jury Recommendation R5 and has already conducted a thorough inspection and evaluation of North Bay Animal Services (NBAS).

The City has assessed the condition of the shelter, evaluated shelter operations, and reviewed the provision of animal control services to determine whether NBAS is complying with legal mandates and the terms of its contract. The City is committed to taking any necessary corrective actions in collaboration with NBAS to ensure that animal care and control services meet legal, operational, and community standards.

R6. By September 30, 2025, each of the cities that contracts with NBAS will require quarterly reports that include data and performance criteria sufficient to evaluate compliance with its contract and all relevant laws. (F2, Fl l)
City Response: The City of Sebastopol acknowledges Grand Jury Recommendation R6. The City is issuing a request for proposals to solicit a new long-term animal services provider. The City will require the selected entity (including North Bay Animal Services (NBAS) if they are selected) to submit quarterly reports beginning no later than 30 days from award of contract .

These reports will be required to include data and performance metrics sufficient to evaluate the provider’s compliance with the terms of its contract and all applicable laws. The City is committed to reviewing these reports regularly and taking appropriate action to ensure that animal control services meet legal requirements and community expectations.

Fl. Failure by the county and its nine cities to adopt recommendations in the 2012 DHS Animal Services Report has left Sonoma County animal service agencies operating without shared standards, communication channels, data sharing or oversight.

City Response: The City of Sebastopol acknowledges Grand Jury Finding F1 and concurs that the absence of county-wide adoption of the 2012 DHS Animal Services Report may have resulted in inconsistent standards, limited communication, and gaps in oversight among animal service agencies.

The City is committed to participating in county-wide efforts, including the Animal Services Task Force, to establish shared standards, improve communication channels, enhance data sharing, and strengthen oversight. Sebastopol will actively collaborate with other cities, the county, and shelter representatives to help implement a more coordinated and effective animal services system. However, the City does not have any authority to adopt standards outside of Sebastopol.

F2. Services provided to the four Sonoma County cities by North Bay Animal Services are non-compliant either with state laws or industry standards for the care of shelter animals as specified in its contracts.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

City Response: The City of Sebastopol acknowledges Grand Jury Finding F2 and recognizes that North Bay Animal Services (NBAS) must fully comply with state laws and industry standards for the care of shelter animals as outlined in its contracts with the four Sonoma County cities. While the City does not necessarily agree with every allegation regarding services in the Grand Jury’s report, the City agrees there are areas for service improvements.

The City is committed to actively monitoring NBAS operations through regular inspections, quarterly reporting, and contract compliance evaluations. Sebastopol will work collaboratively with NBAS and other contracting cities to ensure that animal control and shelter services meet legal requirements, contractual obligations, and community expectations for humane and professional care.

F3. A lack of coordination between SCAS and NBAS is an obstacle to a fully coordinated implementation of the county-wide disaster response plan for animal evacuations.

City Response: The City of Sebastopol agrees with Grand Jury Finding F3 and recognizes coordination is key between Sonoma County Animal Services (SCAS) and North Bay Animal Services (NBAS) and is essential to ensure an effective, county-wide disaster response for animal evacuations.

The City supports efforts by the County to establish clear communication protocols, shared training opportunities, and joint planning exercises between SCAS, NBAS, and other municipal and nonprofit animal service providers. We encourage the development of a unified operational framework that addresses roles, responsibilities, and resource sharing before, during, and after disaster events to eliminate service gaps and reduce delays in animal evacuation and care.

F6. Having multiple different fee structures for animal licenses and services is confusing to the public and complicates billing and collection of license fees and fines.

Having multiple different fee structures for animal licenses and services is confusing to the public and complicates billing and collection of license fees and fines.

A consistent fee structure across jurisdictions would improve public understanding, simplify administration, and reduce the risk of errors in billing and collection. However, fees must reflect the cost of the services provided. If different levels of services are provided to different cities, or the costs of services differ across jurisdictions, uniform fees will not be possible.

F7. Failure to achieve high levels of licensing in all government jurisdictions and provide access to shared information undermines mandated rabies control, makes it more difficult to return lost pets, and results in a loss of revenue.

City Response: The City of Sebastopol acknowledges Grand Jury Finding F7 that failure to achieve high levels of licensing in all government jurisdictions and provide access to shared information undermines mandated rabies control, makes it more difficult to return lost pets, and results in a loss of revenue.

Increased licensing compliance and access to shared licensing data are essential for effective rabies control, reuniting lost pets with their owners, and ensuring revenues receive are necessary to support animal services.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

F8. Based on SCAS data, uniform adoption of online licensing management through DocuPet (or a comparable vendor) would increase county-wide licensing rates and enhance compliance with state law.

City Response: The City of Sebastopol agrees with Grand Jury Finding F8 that uniform adoption of online licensing management through DocuPet (or a comparable vendor) would increase county-wide licensing rates and enhance compliance with state law.

A standardized online licensing system would streamline processes, improve compliance, and make licensing more accessible for residents.

F9. Failure to promote the benefits and legal requirement to license dogs, and failing consistently to send license renewal reminders, contribute to low license compliance and loss of revenue.

City Response: The City of Sebastopol acknowledges Grand Jury Finding F9 that failure to promote the benefits and legal requirement to license dogs, and failing consistently to send license renewal reminders, contribute to low license compliance and loss of revenue.

Consistent public education and timely renewal reminders are important strategies to improve licensing compliance and maintain revenue.

Fl0. Making centralized training resources available could enhance performance of animal services employees and volunteers.

City Response: The City of Sebastopol agrees with Grand Jury Finding F10 that making centralized training resources available could enhance performance of animal services employees and volunteers.

Centralized training resources would help ensure consistent performance standards and enhance service quality across jurisdictions.

F11. Insufficient oversight either by the cities or by the organization's board of directors has allowed NBAS to be non-compliant with state law and the terms of its contracts by: failing to effectively manage licensing and renewals; failing to offer legally mandated rabies vaccination clinics; failing to perform legally mandated spay/neuter of animals prior to placement; failing to consistently submit bite reports to the county health officer (through SCAS); failing to maintain the Petaluma animal shelter in compliance with industry standards; and failing to collect accurate data and provide reports that demonstrate compliance with contract terms.

City Response: The City of Sebastopol acknowledges Grand Jury Finding F11.

The City recognizes that oversight of contracted services is essential to ensure compliance with state law, contractual obligations, and industry standards. While NBAS has provided needed services to the community, the concerns identified by the Grand Jury warrant attention, corrective action, and improved reporting mechanisms. The City is taking steps to implement enhanced oversight measures to ensure contractual and legal compliance. The City can’t comment on the level of oversight by other jurisdictions.

Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Date: Signed:

Mayor Stephen Zollman
Number of pages attached:
(See attached PC Civil Grand Jury Response Requirements) Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

September 3, 2025
Honorable Chris Honigsberg
Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Sonoma County
Hall of Justice
600 Administration Drive
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
And
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury
P.O. Box 5109
Santa Rosa, CA 95402
[email protected]
Subject: City of Sebastopol Response to the Grand Jury
Dear Honorable Chris Honigsberg:

This letter is submitted on behalf of the City Council of the City of Sebastopol. On June 13, 20025, the City of Sebastopol (“City”) received a letter from the Sonoma County Grand Jury which attached a copy of the Civil Grand Jury Report: Animal Services in Sonoma County: Separate and Not Equal (hereafter “Report”).

The report is attached for reference.

The City has determined the release date as June 13, 2025.

Penal Code Section 933 (c) requires that the governing board of the public agency (here, the City Council) is required to respond not later than 90 days after the public release date. As required, the City Council of the City of Sebastopol respectfully submits the following responses to the Findings and Recommendations in the Report in the form required by the Penal Code.

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, this letter documents the City's responses to each finding in the Grand Jury Report (hereinafter "City Response"). The City Response was prepared by City staff, including the Police Chief who’s department oversees animal control and presented to the City Council for their consideration. At the public meeting on September 2, 2025, the City Council approved this City Response, and directed the City Manager to submit this City Response.

The City of Sebastopol thanks the Grand Jury for its service during the 2024-2025 term. If you or the Grand Jury Foreperson have any questions regarding the City's response, please contact Interim City Manager Mary Gourley at email: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Stephen Zollman
Mayor
CF: Sonoma County Grand Jury
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Civil Grand Jury Response Requirements
Following are pertinent excerpts from the California Penal Code concerning responses to Civil Grand Jury reports:

Section 933(c): “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.”
Section 933.05(a): “For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.”
Section 933.05(b): “For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.”
Section 933.05(c): “However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.” Section 933.05(f): “A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.”
Section 933(a) provides in part that “For 45 days after the end of the [grand jury] term, the foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report.”
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Date: 05/21/2025
To: Sean McDonagh
Chief of Police
City of Sebastopol
From: Mark Scott
Executive Director
North Bay Animal Services
Re: Animal Services Contract Renewal
Our current contract ends July 1st, 2024, with a possible 1-year extension.

Recently we have contracted with some of the surrounding cities for 10-year contracts which allow us to connect with the community and added a cost savings to the city.

We propose the following options for renewal.

The current contract is $15,750 Per year or $1312.50 Per month

1. 1 - Year - Contact as it is written with 10% increase Total $ 17,325 Per Year / $1443.75 Per Month

2. 5 - Year - Contact as it is written with 20% increase Total $ 18,900 Per Year / $1575.00 Per Month

3. 10 -Year - Contact as it is written with 30 % increase Total $ 20,475 Per Year /$1706.25 Per Month Note**
Totals are fixed amounts. There will not be any additional increases per year for the length of the contract.

Mark Scott
Executive Director
North Bay Animal Services
840 Hopper St. Petaluma, CA 94952
Wk.: 707-762-6227
Cell: 707-364-9554
[email protected]
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Humane Society Sonoma County (HSSC)
In Partnership with Sonoma County
Animal Care Services (SCAS)
Cost Proposal to the City of Sebastopol
HSSC is pleased to submit to the Sebastopol City Council a proposed budget for interim animal care and field support for animal care in the city limits. This contract would fulfill the city’s needs month to month while they go through the RFP Process. The budget proposed below is estimated based on a former contract that equaled approximately 100 animals per calendar year. This amount would be the baseline cost and if the number of animals went more than 25% higher than the baseline HSSC would retain the right to invoice for additional expenses. If there are any questions, please contact HSSC Executive Director Cynthia King at [email protected].

Interim Monthly Animal Care Field Support and Sheltering Budget Monthly Expenses
Humane Society Staff FTE Monthly Rate
Operations Director 0.01 $850
Intake Coordinator 0.03 $1,000
Animal Care Technician 0.01 $500
Subtotal 0.05 $2,350
Benefits 20% $470
$2,820
SCAS Field Officer (subcontracted) $2,850
Subtotal $5,670
Operations
Software, licensing and subscriptions $65
Supplies $150
Utilities $160
Subtotal $375
Staff +Ops $6,045
Indirect 10%$605
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Humane Society Sonoma County (HSSC)
Monthly Estimated Total $6,650
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd

Humane Society Sonoma County (HSSC)
Agenda Item Number: 19 Agenda Item Number: 19
City Council Meeting Packet for Meeting of: September 2nd