Marin County Grand Jury
2012-2013
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (14)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Historically, there has been a lack of transparency regarding the Foundation’s methods and financial circumstances and this has led to spending donor funds on non-donor designated purposes.
F2:
As of the date of this report’s finalization, the Advancement Office of College of Marin is neither a USC 501(c)(3) nor a California State 23701e-designated non- profit organization and this creates potential problems for the acceptance of corporate donations.
F3:
As of the date of this report’s finalization, The Foundation has not filed IRS Form 990 and California State Form RRF-1 since 2011. These forms are required to be submitted every fiscal year in order to renew an organization’s tax-exempt status.
F4:
The College is currently in charge of all Foundation assets and with that comes potential for a conflict of interest.
F5:
No source for emergency funds exists for students in immediate need of financial assistance since Restricted funds were repurposed.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Directors of the current Foundation and any successor organization collecting funds in support of College of Marin, its students, programs and departments, make public, on a quarterly basis, the status of the Foundation or its successor, its assets and plans for the immediate future.
R2:
College of Marin's Advancement Office file for USC 501(c)(3) and State of California 23701e status.
R3:
The Foundation immediately file IRS Form 990 Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, and State Form RRF-1, Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report to Attorney General of California, for 2012 to renew the organization’s registration as a public benefit corporation. These forms must be on file for the Foundation to collect money legally or to proceed with dissolution.
R4:
The College, immediately following the dissolution of the Foundation, create an independent body to collect and administer donations to benefit students and programs of the College.
R5:
College of Marin’s Office of Advancement contact outside sources, including service groups, to arrange for emergency funds for students in immediate need of financial assistance until a permanent program to address these needs is established.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Marin County Elections Department is well managed with a small staff and encourages public input through the Election Advisory Committee.
F2:
Although 100% VBM in Marin County for general elections would save the County money, California’s current election laws prohibit 100% VBM for general elections.
F3:
Statewide 100% VBM elections, such as those in Oregon and Washington, are unlikely in the near to intermediate future in California because VBM usage in California is substantially lower than in Oregon and Washington.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors encourage our elected representatives in the State Legislature to allow individual counties to adopt 100% VBM for all elections.
R2:
If the State adopts 100% VBM provisions at the discretion of each county, then the Board of Supervisors seek recommendations from the Registrar of Voters and the Election Advisory Committee whether or not to pursue 100% VBM.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors acknowledge the significant contribution of election volunteers at Agenda Meetings subsequent to each general election.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Board of Supervisors and other key players made decisions that contributed directly or indirectly to the MERIT project failure.
F2:
The ATOM project has been designed and managed in ways that show the BOS has learned lessons from MERIT. However, the current governance structure for ATOM is unclear and does not fully assign responsibilities or give “ownership” of the project to any specific entity or person.
F3:
The PM role for ATOM has not been given the authority and responsibility warranted for a project of this size.
F4:
ATOM has no comprehensive project plan or change management plan in accordance with Project Management Institute (PMI) standards.
F5:
There is a heavy reliance on outside consultants to guide and drive the ATOM project, with no clear plan to acquire the needed expertise to avoid a similar reliance in the future.
F6:
The BOS does not have a well-defined oversight role established over ATOM that ensures frequent briefings and comprehensive progress summaries (dashboards). The Marin County Board of Supervisors’ Response, “Advantages of Creating an Independent Office of Budget and Legislative Analysis,” September 11, 2012, marincounty.org 37 Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph, June 2009, p85, Harvard University Press.
F7:
The BOS did not use an objective advisory resource (OAR) for evaluating major decisions pertaining to MERIT or ATOM.
F8:
The BOS does not have a standard procedure for using an OAR when considering or overseeing large projects.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The BOS reconfigure the ATOM governance to appoint the CAO and the IST Director as Project Directors with full authority to manage the project, and equal responsibility for its successful completion.
R2:
The BOS elevate the current Project Manager role to senior, full-time Project Manager status reporting to the Project Directors and having responsibility for all project operations.
R3:
The BOS advise the CA, IST Director, and PM to develop a comprehensive project plan and change management plan for ATOM in accordance with PMI standards.
R4:
The BOS establish a schedule of regular briefings at which the ATOM Project Directors and the Project Manager present a progress summary (dashboard) for all major facets of the project.
R5:
The BOS reduce Marin’s reliance on outside consultants and hire outside consultants only when the requesting department can fully demonstrate the lack of that expertise within the department.
R6:
The BOS require departments requesting outside consultants to use the contract with the consultant to acquire the missing expertise, unless the scope of the consulting is unique and limited.
R7:
The BOS identify or develop an objective advisory resource (OAR) who is a subject matter expert in IST Project Management, to review the design and governance of ATOM, and to brief the BOS on any potential problems or recommended changes.
R8:
The BOS identify or develop an OAR entity and formally insert that resource into its decision-making process for all major projects.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
We find that many of Marin’s local governments and special districts are failing to pre-fund future costs for retired employees by making investments to cover promised benefits for active employees. This jeopardizes the certainty that retiree health care benefits promised to current employees will be paid.
F2:
The failure of the majority of entities studied in this investigation to begin an investment program to provide a portion of the needed funds to pay for retiree health care benefits leads to generation shifting of the payment responsibility. Thus it appears to be, at the least unethical, and even a breach of fiduciary responsibility.
F3:
The extreme 30-year amortization period used by most entities minimizes the annual cost of funding the liability gap and further defers to future generations the compensation owed to present employees who provide services to present taxpayers and customers. Shorter amortization periods should be required for reasons of equity and to ensure that the promised benefits will be provided.
F4:
By capping retiree health care benefits, the City of San Rafael has reasonable certainty as to what those costs are. Other entities studied here that promise to pay for future retiree health care with uncertain and likely rapidly increasing costs are accepting an unknown and potentially very costly risk.
F5:
Because a few Marin County cities and other entities studied provide very limited benefits yet still appear able to meet community service needs, and because providing such benefits is increasingly rare in the private sector, such benefits appear to be unnecessary for attracting and retaining employees. Accordingly, for active and newly hired employees, the benefits should be trimmed and costs should be shared between the employees and their employer.
F6:
Marin entities using “Pay-Go” funding are paying only the current year health care benefits of those already retired. This ignores the reasonably known rising costs to cover future retirees who are already heading for retirement. Some actuarial valuation reports the Grand Jury studied provide those future “Pay-Go” estimates year-by-year, so they should be readily available from the actuary’s valuations. Estimates of those annual costs for each of the next 10 years should be provided to the public so that those who will incur the costs can know those costs.
F7:
Employers studied for this report should include an age-60, or even later, date for retiree health care benefits to commence in future negotiations with employees and their representatives.
F8:
The results of retiree health care actuarial cost analyses are summarized if at all only in obscure notes to annual financial statements. The public is entitled to more readily accessible explanation of these costs because the public will bear those costs.
F9:
There is a wide range of retiree health care benefits offered among the entities studied in this investigation. No clear explanation for the range from minimal to extremely generous is readily available. Those entities that are promising relatively generous benefits should provide clear justifications to their citizens and customers.
F10:
Most of the entities the Grand Jury investigated are using fairly reasonable discount rates of 4% - 5% per year to bring back to today in actuarial valuations the future annual costs of retiree health care benefits. However, some are using higher and highly questionable rate assumptions that are not justified by the investments (if any) that they have made to grow and fund the future benefits. The result is to understate the total funding needed today and in future years, to pay for those future benefits.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Begin setting aside in separate investment accounts, if it is not already doing so, each year’s funds for amortizing its retiree health care benefits’ UAAL, in addition to its “Pay-Go” funding of those benefits for present retirees.
R2:
Begin a program to lower the amortization period for funding its retiree health care benefits UAAL from as much as 30 years presently, to approach (within 10 years), the commonly used 17-year amortization period for retiree pension funding.
R3:
Negotiate caps on the amounts it commits to pay existing and new employees for retiree health care benefits.
R4:
Negotiate a higher retirement age than the currently applicable age for the commencement of retiree health care benefits.
R5:
Require active employees to make a contribution towards the cost of their retiree health care benefit.
R6:
Place a link on its website to provide the latest actuarial valuation of its AAL, its UAAL, its consequent percent funded, its discount rate (annual percentage) used to determine these values, and a projection of outlays (“Pay-Go”) for retiree health care benefits for each of the current and subsequent 10 years.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The proposed changes to the Community Service Funds program address and eliminate many, but not all, of the deficiencies highlighted in the Grand Jury’s January 2013 report.
F2:
The Board of Supervisors and the CAO need to take further steps to ensure that the CSF is implemented on a truly objective basis.
F3:
All potentially eligible grant recipients should be made aware of the revised program’s processes.
F4:
There appears to be confusion among some of the Supervisors regarding the extent to which they have individual priority “rights” to steer to their Districts some of the $530,000 in surplus funds placed at the end of the Fiscal year in the One-Time Funds account used for broad emergency (or non-repetitive) County disbursement needs.
F5:
The revised CSF program is a “work-in-progress” that will be inaugurated for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2013-14. It will be important to monitor and, as appropriate, further modify the program, based on experience.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The revised CSF Program specifically prioritizes Countywide projects and grants that have impact on more than one Supervisor District.
R2:
The new CSF Program provides grants that are truly for one-time needs, and not for on-going recipient programs.
R3:
The revised CSF provides objective criteria that will be used to rank applicants’ requests. Suggested criteria, for instance, might include consistency with the County’s “4-Es” goals and the promotion of that fiscal year’s County Budget’s theme.
R4:
The Board of Supervisors launch a publicity campaign well before the start of Fiscal Year 2013-14 that explains the revised CSF Program, its application process and the criteria to be considered for granting monies under the Program.
R5:
The CAO (and/or Director of Finance, if appropriate) provide an explanation of the “One-Time Fund” account and the procedures for determining and authorizing expenditures from that account. The explanation should make clear that Supervisors have no preferential District-specific rights to the portion of that account comprised of the $530,000 “surrendered” by the Board of Supervisors from their cumulative unspent CSF monies. The BOS should review and endorse this explanation.
R6:
The revised CSF Program to be inaugurated in Fiscal Year 2013-14 be evaluated by the CAO at the end of that Fiscal Year and a Report on its operation be provided to the BOS and posted on the County’s website. The Report should summarize number of applicants, number of applications rejected and reasons for rejection, number of applications granted broken down by sectors that include non-profits, local governments, and any other appropriate categories, and range of dollars granted pursuant to applications received during the Fiscal Year.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The current law allows for jail sentences of unlimited length. Such long-term commitments are ill suited to the current Marin County Jail facility.
F2:
The Marin County Jail staff will continue to face more sophisticated and possibly dangerous inmates. These inmates will present dangers to themselves, to other inmates, and to jail staff. Therefore, long sentences for this new kind of inmate increase the need for educational and rehabilitative programs, exercise opportunities, and the facilities to enable all such efforts.
F3:
In the absence of future limitations upon the length of possible jail sentences, the Marin County Jail will face an aging and sedentary inmate population. These persons may initially enter the jail with compromised health. Therefore, long-term jail sentences will increase the need for healthcare services and the facilities to provide such care.
F4:
A recent Marin County Grand Jury report, “A Sobering Center in Marin – One Small Step in Solving a Big Problem,” found a need for further resources to combat public inebriation. Sobering centers need greater capacity. If additional sobering center resources become available, then the ability of the criminal justice system to focus personnel and jail facilities on more dangerous criminals will increase
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors must advocate for state laws to establish a maximum county jail sentence for AB 109 inmates.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors must increase jail funding, enabling the Sheriff to upgrade the Marin County Jail’s current educational and rehabilitative programs, exercise opportunities, and the needed facilities to enable all such efforts, in order to satisfy the needs of long-term AB 109 inmates and enhance staff safety.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors must increase jail funding, enabling the Sheriff to upgrade the current healthcare treatment, and healthcare facilities of the Marin County Jail to meet the mental health, medical, and dental needs of long-term AB 109 inmates.
R4:
The Board of Supervisors must expand sobering center services in Marin County.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 was overwhelmingly supported by 73% of Marin voters, and more than 6000 residents have applied for Medical Marijuana ID cards. County oversight is needed to protect the rights and safety of those residents who have legal authorization to purchase medical marijuana.
F2:
Medical marijuana edible products are not regulated by the County’s Department of Health and Human Services; therefore, there is no guarantee that the products are safe.
F3:
Medical marijuana mobile delivery services without a fixed Marin County business address should be subject to a flat rate license tax.
F4:
Since 2011, all but one medical marijuana dispensary in the county have been closed. One dispensary, already serving 800 patients, cannot adequately meet the needs of a county this size.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors respect the will of the voters and the intentions of the Compassionate Use Act by using its authority to uphold access to medical marijuana within the county. Compassion without action is not enough.
R2:
The County Department of Health and Human Services establish standards for edible medical marijuana sold in Marin County.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors, in concert with law enforcement, the Planning Commission, and representatives from the Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board, develop a viable set of ordinances for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of the County.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Redwood Landfill’s 2008 EIR is being challenged in court, thereby jeopardizing its 2008 Solid Waste Facility Permit, which has delayed the construction of the methane gas-to-energy plant and the Construction and Demolition sort line.
F2:
Redwood Landfill, as currently permitted, has a finite life and therefore, alternate methods of waste diversion need to be explored.
F3:
Waste-to-Energy Plants can be a solution to limited landfill space.
F4:
A portion of Marin County MSW is being sent to out-of-county landfills, increasing our carbon footprint and making our waste another county’s problem.
F5:
Marin County waste disposal has diminished by over 27% since 1995 due to the passage of AB 939 in 1989 and public awareness.
F6:
Redwood Landfill has seen a waste reduction of 24% during the same time period as a result of less out-of -county disposal in the Marin landfill and the effects of diversion awareness. 19 http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-6/features/microwave-plasma- gasification-heats-up-in-the-us.html
F7:
CalRecycle statistics prove that waste diversion in Marin County is much higher than the national average due to concerted efforts by the Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and local waste haulers to educate the public.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) meet with Redwood Landfill as soon as feasibly possible to gain assurances that the landfill methane gas-to-energy plant will become a reality.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) ensure that Redwood Landfill completes the Construction and Demolition sort line.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Marin County Public Works Department, Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority (JPA) work with Redwood Landfill to ensure the building of an anaerobic digester for food waste, the energy from which can be added to the methane gas-to-energy plant.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Marin County Public Works Department, Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority (JPA) work with Redwood Landfill to explore all options for minimizing future disposal through some cost effective, least polluting form of waste gasification, such as Microwave Plasma Gasification.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that Local Jurisdictions holding MSW franchise agreements mandate, through revisions to the agreements, that haulers dispose of all MSW generated in Marin County in Marin County.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Single-use plastic carry-out bags cause harm to the environment and wildlife.
F2:
Reduction or ban of single-use plastic carry-out bags will help Marin County reach its zero waste goal.
F3:
Reduction or ban of single-use plastic carry-out bags will help keep the land and waters of the County cleaner.
F4:
Most Marin County governments do not currently have bans against single-use plastic carry-out bags. However, most are responsive to enacting policies against single-use plastic carry-out bags.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority (JPA) prepare the Model Single-Use Bag Ordinance to implement the strictest rules possible and encourage all agencies to adopt the Ordinance with minimal changes. A ban on single-use plastic carry-out bags should be imposed in all grocery stores, convenience stores, pharmacies and restaurants within the County and apply to all establishments, no matter how large or small.
R2:
Marin County and The Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Members educate the public on the benefits of reusable bags. Marin County and Marin County and The Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Members develop standardized educational guides for all public schools showing the environmental harm done by plastic single-use carry-out bags. Marin County and The Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Members develop educational materials and distribute them at public events such as farmers' markets and street fairs.
R3:
Marin Towns and Cities adopt an ordinance to ban all single-use plastic carry-out bags using the Model Single-Use Bag Ordinance with minimal, or no, changes, in order to create a true County-wide ordinance.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The STAR Court is not doing enough to include family members in the legal and treatment process.
F2:
The STAR Court needs to increase minority participation.
F3:
Graduates from the STAR Court need more preparation on how to maintain progress and avoid relapse after graduation.
F4:
Assigning a dedicated attorney from the District Attorney’s office to STAR Court is more effective than a rotational approach
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
It is the stated policy of Community Mental Health Services (CMHS) to include family participation in Marin’s public mental health services where permitted by law and the client. We recommend that the STAR Court work with participants’ families to put into practice the policy of the CMHS.
R2:
We recommend that STAR Court provide, with the consent of participants, a session of orientation for family members to educate the family about how the 4 The original text came from the Blueprint for Mental Health Services in New Zealand, Mental Health Commission, 1998, p. 10. STAR Court operates and what its goals are. This need not in any way breach client confidentiality.
R3:
Prior to graduation, the participant's family should be advised by the STAR Treatment Team of community resources available to the participants and family members, such as ongoing support groups. Engaging Minority Populations
R4:
Minorities are underserved in STAR Court. This may be due to cultural factors, distrust of the system, issues of language or reluctance to be labeled mentally ill. We recommend that the Handbook provided to participants be translated into Spanish, and that there be increased outreach and engagement with minority populations by the STAR Treatment Team to broaden the referral base. Preparation for Graduation from the STAR Court
R5:
The STAR Court Team should place more emphasis on the problems that newly- graduated participants are likely to encounter post-graduation, beginning in the second or third phase of the program. Participants should be encouraged to access team members even after graduation to reduce the risk of relapse.
R6:
We recommend that graduates be invited and encouraged to continue participating in the peer-counseling group, which meets after court each week. The inclusion of successful program graduates as speakers, role models and sources of information could provide ongoing structure and peer support after the graduate has moved on. Decreasing Turnover and Maintaining Continuity
R7:
We recommend that legal and law enforcement personnel assigned to the STAR Court be kept in place for as much as two years, if feasible, so there is continuity in the STAR Court process for the wellbeing of the participants.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
MCFL staff feel they are not included in the planning process. They feel uninformed, out of the loop and that big decisions "come down to them" from the Administration, already fully formed. This affects morale negatively and lessens the potential for “buy-in” by staff to support change and could stifle the very improvements the planning process seeks to introduce.
F2:
MCFL uses a large number of “extra-hire” employees. There are often long employment times filled by extra-hires in temporary status while waiting for an opportunity to move to an FTE status. Staff have expressed that this serves to lower employee morale, which results in a potentially stressful working climate.
F3:
The Library Commission was originally created by the BOS to act as advisor to both the BOS and Library administration on Library issues. The BOS also appointed the Library Commission in 2010 as the Measure A Independent Citizen Oversight Committee. The Library Commission's input on Measure A has been limited to twice-yearly reports from Library Administration. The Commission’s limited input and apparent lack of involvement leaves an unfilled gap in what should be pro- active support for advocating needed service support for Library objectives.
F4:
There is insufficient contact and communication between the Library Commission and the BOS. There have been 2 vacant positions on the Library Commission unfilled for some months, and some of the Commissioners have never met the Supervisor who appointed them. This further negatively affects the effectiveness and usefulness of what should be supportive Commission advocacy for the Library programs and objectives.
F5:
The Library Foundation has drifted away from its primary role to find ways to support the library financially. The Grand Jury in 2002 and this Grand Jury find a lack of understanding in this body as to ways and means of producing needed, sustainable financial support for the MCFL system.
F6:
Friends of the Library have been valuable partners. They provide an avenue for enthusiastic volunteers to be involved with and support their community libraries in a variety of ways. Their efforts and contributions---both financial and supportive- we found warrant commendation and recognition.
F7:
Expenditures of Measure A funds are difficult to track. The MCFL budget does not show separate line items for Measure A expenditures. An improved, focused presentation of Measure A inflows and outflows should be established and reviewed by the Library Commission and be reported by the Commission to the BOS, at least yearly, and preferably more frequently.
F8:
There is insufficient long-range Library facility and services planning. The 2007 Vision Plan is out of date with the current funding situation and rapidly changing service needs of the MCFL. A new Long-Range Plan should be a high priority of the Library Commission and should be targeted for completion within the 2013-14 Fiscal Year, and preferably early in that period so that it can be reflected in the County’s 2013-14 Annual Budgeting cycle and part of any new or extended solicitation of additional tax funds.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The new MCFL Director of Library Services make improved communication a priority and include all affected groups and stakeholders early in any new MCFL planning process to get feedback and input from Staff. Leadership needs to encourage staff input in contemplating major changes. Participation could include tasking staff to do research and reports in-house during the planning process.
R2:
The MCFL administration develop a well-defined and reasonably short path to permanent hire status for those (especially “extra hires”) who want to pursue a career in Library service.
R3:
MCFL prepare progress reports and audit of expenditures on Measure A spending and that Library Commissioners, in their capacity as the Independent Citizen Oversight Committee for Measure A, review the status monthly. Both the BOS and Library Commissioners to meet a minimum of twice yearly to discuss and provide guidance on current issues and long term plans for the MCFL, including feedback to the BOS.
R4:
The BOS appoint commissioners to the two vacant positions in District 4 and District 5, and that the BOS make it a policy to promptly find and replace commissioners when needed. When a new commissioner comes to his or her first meeting, the appointing Supervisor should attend and introduce the person to the Commission.
R5:
The Library Foundation develop a plan to further its stated goals of spear-heading community enthusiasm and financial support for the MCFL. The Library Foundation investigate ways to increase long-term, consistent funding for the MCFL that can be relied on for continuing library services, such as the FLAGship and the Bookmobile. If such a plan is not forthcoming, the Grand Jury recommends that the Library Foundation consider a merger with the Friends.
R6:
MCFL and BOS support Friends with information and recognition! MCFL and BOS should encourage collaboration between the Friends and the Foundation to share ideas and coordinate fund-raising efforts and possibly events.
R7:
MCFL develop a comprehensive work plan including scope, schedule and budget for all work funded through Measure A and make the status of Measure A projects a discussion item at each Library Commission meeting.
R8:
MCFL revisit and update its 2007 Vision Plan, with staff and community participation.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
There has been a long history of fire on Mt. Tamalpais. It is likely that wildfire will occur again.
F2:
Wildfire danger is rated very high owing to substantial fuel-load growth especially for invasive weeds, particularly various species of Broom.
F3:
Property development in areas adjacent to open space places these adjacent communities at great risk to fire and the loss of life and property.
F4:
Traditional vegetation management methods have not been effective in the control of Broom infestations.
F5:
The use of herbicides in conjunction with traditional vegetation management methods is the most effective means to eliminate Broom, and is cost effective compared to less productive alternatives
F6:
Current scientific studies indicate that the recommended application of glyphosate with a surfactant approved for use within Watershed areas pose no significant risk.
F7:
Approved glyphosate based herbicides have been certified as safe by the EPA, are used by the Marin Country Parks & Open Space District and on Federal, County and State owned lands. Extending the use of glyphosates to MMWD lands to control Broom should be practical and controllable based on experiences gained from these other glyphosate applications within the county.
F8:
The MMWD Board of Directors’ agreement to stop using herbicides to control Broom has resulted in over 300 additional acres in increased Broom infestation over the past 8 years. This has led to a high risk of fire, and exposes communities adjacent to the MMWD lands to the consequent loss of property and lives.
F9:
Some community activists refuse to consider any information showing that a managed application of herbicides approved by the EPA can be used in any form. Decisions concerning the use of herbicides to control fuel load on MMWD lands should be based entirely on science, economics and the broad public welfare.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The MMWD Board adopt Approach 2 with the expectation that the findings of the EIR will support the program to control Broom using glyphosate based herbicides, an action also recommended by their own subject matter experts.
R2:
The MMWD Board act on policies that they conclude are the most effective in the control of Broom, wildfire and the effective management of the MMWD lands.
R3:
Existing codes governing defensible space and other fire regulations be rigorously enforced on MMWD and adjacent developed and open-space lands..
R4:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors go on record that control of Broom within the MMWD lands is a high priority and that the most effective means of control should be utilized. This is consistent with the Board of Supervisors existing policy for the county’s open space lands.
R5:
Should a less effective approach to vegetation management be selected (Approach 1), new funding sources should be pursued by the most affected communities.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
On average, public inebriates occupy 4 – 5 beds every day in County Hospitals’ EDs for up to six hours at a time and more than 20 public inebriates are incarcerated in the County Jail every week. And yet the number of public inebriates accommodated at The Vine has decreased from 6 per week in the 2006 – 2008 period to less than 2 per week in 2011. We conclude that our County hospitals as well as our County Jail are disproportionately bearing the burden of a chronic societal issue that could be better addressed by a stand-alone sobering center.
F2:
In 2011, only 8% of public inebriates were transported to sobering beds located at The Vine, compared to 38% of inebriates in Santa Barbara using that city’s sobering center. Marin’s hospital emergency rooms and County Jail are handling a societal problem that should better be handled by a stand-alone facility with more sobering bed capacity than The Vine.
F3:
The all-in cost of providing a sobering bed is substantially less than the cost of a stay in a hospital ED.
F4:
Using a sobering bed also reduces the bookings cost at our County Jail, frees up space for additional jail inmates, and may lower the operating costs of the various Marin County law enforcement agencies now using the County Jail to book public inebriates.
F5:
The best vehicle for carrying the sobering center project forward is the Chronic Alcohol Use with Justice Involvement Project. The members include the Director of the Marin County Health and Human Services Department (the HHS Director) and the Chief of Police in San Rafael. The Project often expands to include representatives of the Sheriff and County Offices. The Project is interested in reducing recidivism and improving outcomes for the chronic public inebriate population.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
We recommend that the HHS Director distribute this report to the Chronic Alcohol Use with Justice Involvement Project, to the Sheriff, to local police chiefs and to Marin County Hospitals for their review.
R2:
We recommend that the HHS Director work with the Chronic Alcohol Use with Justice Involvement Project with input from the Sheriff, Marin police departments, and Marin County Hospitals to prepare a cost benefit analysis of a stand-alone sobering center in Marin County that would be in lieu of jail or the use of hospital EDs.
R3:
We recommend that the HHS Director work with the Chronic Alcohol Use with Justice Involvement Project, the Sheriff’s Office, Marin Police Departments and Marin County Hospitals to secure funding from the primary beneficiaries identified in this cost benefit analysis to develop a stand-alone sobering center in Marin County.
R4:
We recommend that the Sheriff’s Office and each Marin County police department research and report on the possible cost savings and other benefits achieved from making greater use of a sobering center.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.