Issue | Background | Findings | Conclusions | Recommendations | Responses | Attachments Review of Special Districts

Conclusions 11

• CL1 Page 39
  1) Effective Community Communication – MROSD disagrees with the conclusion that “there is generally minimal interchange between citizens and districts except around election time.” MROSD communicates regularly with its constituents. In addition to our bi-monthly public meetings that are announced via the website, posted agendas, and regular mail, MROSD holds public workshops and Board committee meetings inviting the public to participate in learning about the activities of the District. MROSD publishes a quarterly newsletter that includes information about District programs, projects, and numerous outdoor opportunities to learn more about the District and the natural resources within our preserves. The newsletter is posted on the District website and mailed to over 30,000 homes and businesses within our jurisdiction. The MROSD website, www.openspace.org, also provides extensive information about the District, its services, activities, history, and other relevant information. The public is invited to respond to surveys on the website, to give the District feedback via email, and communicate directly with our Board Members. MROSD participates in local area community events such as Art and Wine festivals and environmental fairs, to educate the public about the purpose of the District and the outdoor and educational opportunities we provide. Finally, the District has an Ombudsperson who is available to assist residents of the District in their interaction with the District and facilitates resolution when needed.
• CL2 Page 40
  2) Internal Control Audits – MROSD agrees with the conclusion; we conduct an annual audit that is performed by accounting professionals and issued without qualification.
• CL3 Page 40
  3) Financial Reserves – MROSD disagrees with this conclusion. Please see responses to Financial Resources in the Findings section and under Recommendations.
• CL4 Page 40
  4) Cost Effective Delivery of Service – The conclusion is not relevant to MROSD, a district with over 75 employees.
• CL5 Page 106
  Regarding the implementation of a written document defining the District’s purposes and communicating this to homeowners and residents in the District. The Sequoia Healthcare District’s mission and vision is documented within the District’s policies and procedures, and publicized on the home page of our website. As of the summer of 2004, we initiated a comprehensive information program utilizing community newsletters, presentations to community and civic and governmental groups, along with regular updates to our Web site. The information conveyed includes the District’s purposes, as well as its mission and vision. Additionally, the District’s purposes are defined and documented in the Health and Safety Codes Sections 32000- 32492, (The Local Health Care District Law) the body of law that governs all California Health Care Districts.
• CL6 Page 106
  Regarding the recommendation to update or complete a policy and procedures manual. The Sequoia Healthcare District has a complete policy and procedure manual, available on the District’s website: http://www.sequoiahealthcaredistrict.com/p&p.pdf
• CL7 Page 106
  Regarding insuring all computer systems adhere to good security practices and the recommendation to contact the County’s Information Systems Department for standards and recommendations. The Sequoia Healthcare District’s computer systems adhere to the highest degree of security practices. Due to the District’s office location at Sequoia Hospital, it is necessary and required that the District’s IT systems adhere to the same stringent security standards and practices as the acute health care facility in which our offices reside.
• CL8 Page 106
  Regarding the expansion of financial reporting to include information about reserves: why they are maintained, rationale for and amounts of planned expenditure(s). Beginning the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004, the District’s annual audited financial statements are supplemented with a Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). The MD&A in and of itself is an expansion of the financial reporting, which includes information about the District’s reserves. This report and the audited financial statements are available on the District’s website at http://www.sequoiahealthcaredistrict.com/fiscalreport.html. Additionally, during its annual budget review, the Sequoia Healthcare District will discuss the coming year’s budget with consideration given to maintaining appropriate reserves and positive operational cash flow while meeting emerging healthcare needs of the community. Such discussions are open to the public and documented in the minutes, also available on the District’s website at http://www.sequoiahealthcaredistrict.com/boardmeetings.html.
• CL9 Page 107
  Regarding development of guidelines for the amount of invested reserves needed for support of current operations, as well as anticipated capital programs utilizing the experience and expertise of the County Treasurer. Following its recent long-range financial planning process, the Sequoia Healthcare District adopted a budget that will be reviewed annually, with consideration given to maintaining appropriate reserves and positive operational cash flow while meeting the emerging healthcare needs of the community, which include supporting the rebuild of Sequoia Hospital to meet new mandated seismic standards. The District will continue to utilize the experience and expertise of its financial consultant, Ms. Tammy Staeden, to support the District’s long-range and ongoing financial planning processes. Ms. Staeden is a Manager from HFS Consultants (HFS), with over nine years’ experience in health care finance. Ms. Staeden has specific expertise in financial feasibility studies, budgeting, and forecasting techniques. She has particular knowledge of acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and rural health clinics. She has provided financial consulting services to a wide range of health care clients and also has experience in general accounting roles and is proficient in various software programs. Ms. Staeden is a member of the Healthcare Financial Management Association. West Bay Sanitary District 500 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, CA 94025 (650) 321-0384 /Fax (650) 321-4265 1591.1 August 23, 2005 Honorable Norman J. Gatzert Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 RE: Review of Special District Report Dear Judge Gatzert: At its regular meeting of August 22, 2005, the Honorable Members of the District Board of the West Bay Sanitary District reviewed the Special District Report prepared by the Grand Jury of San Mateo County. The District Board has instructed me to convey the following comments related to the Grand Jury’s recommendations and other matters.
• CL10 Page 4
  It was clear that the questionnaire could not provide the level of information required to answer the investigative issue with any detail or certainty. And still the Grand Jury wanted some sense of how the special districts perform. Effective Community Communication Excluding assessments appearing on tax bills or the charging of a fee for service, there is generally minimal interchange between citizens and districts except around election time. 4 Districts should become keenly aware of their responsibility to provide timely notice of meetings and meeting frequency, and issues under consideration. Districts that have not created a written document of purpose should create the document and disseminate the information to residents as a matter of good business. Internal Control Audits Certified financial audits performed by accounting professionals include an evaluation of the system of internal controls and a review of expenditures for appropriate authorization and purpose. The County Controller has reported receiving a copy of the certified financial audits from all twenty-three of the districts. Each was issued without qualification and the information provided fairly represented the financial positions of the Districts. Financial Reserves Rather than dismissing the issue of determining when large reserves are too large because there is no accepted standard of measurement, each district should include as part of its public reporting a description as to why the reserves are maintained; when the resources can be expected to be expended; what is the estimated total cost of the anticipated expenditure; and why the expenditure is necessary for the accomplishment of the special districts purpose. The districts, working with the cooperation of the County Treasurer, should undertake a study to develop guidelines for investment reserves. Cost Effective Delivery of Service Future Grand Juries examining special districts should consider selecting districts without or with few employees, for review, to determine if the services they provide are cost effective.
• CL11 Page 99
  Effective Community Communication: District Response: This conclusion is not strictly applicable to the Harbor District, especially with regard to Pillar Point Harbor. Harbor District staff and Commissioners have frequent contact with harbor users and, on some issues, with wider community residents who are not typically harbor users. The District publicly notices its Harbor Commission meetings on a routine, timely basis at all facilities and on its website, and makes available meeting agendas and minutes to the public on the website and as requested. Internal Control Audits: District Response: Agree with conclusion stated. 400 Oyster Point Boulevard Suite 300, South San Francisco, CA 94080 Telephone (650) 583-4400 Facsimile (650) 583-4611 San Mateo County Harbor District Board of Harbor Commissioners Sally Campbell, President Pietro Parravano, Vice President James Tucker, Treasurer Ken Lundie, Secretary Leo Padreddii, Commissioner General Manager Peter Grenell Financial Reserves: District Response: Concur with conclusion. Please see the District’s response to Recommendation 4 below for full response. Cost Effective Delivery of Service: District Response: Conclusion not applicable to the Harbor District.

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.