San Diego County Grand Jury
2012-2013
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F01:
This was the first of many disappointments for Alpine residents concerning the 12th HS. Fact: GUHSD Governing Board passed Resolution No. 2003-148 on December 3, 2003. This Resolution called for a $274 million bond (Proposition H) to be used to renovate and rehabilitate existing schools as well as to construct a new school to serve students residing in the Alpine/Blossom Valley region of the District. Fact: Proposition H passed in March 2004 with 62.01% of the vote. Fact: GUHSD underestimated the cost for repairs and upgrades required for existing District high schools, leaving insufficient Proposition H funds to construct the 12th HS.
F02:
It was obvious by 2008 that GUHSD would not build the 12th HS due to a shortage of remaining Proposition H funds. Fact: GUHSD Governing Board voted on August 4, 2008 to place a $417 million bond Proposition U on the November 4, 2008 ballot. Proposition U specifically called for constructing a new school in the Alpine/Blossom Valley area, in addition to upgrading classrooms and facilities. Fact: Proposition U required that attendance equal or exceed the official 2007-08 CBEDS enrollment before construction could begin on the 12th HS. Fact: Proposition U passed with 56.6% voter approval.
F03:
Taxpayers in the region again felt that GUHSD would build the 12th HS. Fact: On June 11, 2009, the GUHSD Governing Board voted unanimously to acquire a site for the 12th HS. Fact: To date, GUHSD has spent approximately $22M in acquiring the site for the 12th HS.
F04:
Selection of site and acquisition of the land again gave hope to Alpine/Blossom Valley area citizens. Fact: On February 10, 2011 the GUHSD Governing Board approved the seven Superintendent recommendations pertaining to the 12th HS, including submitting site preparation plans to DSA and putting 12th HS funds into an escrow fund. Fact: On July 14, 2011, the GUHSD Governing Board passed a resolution to adopt the February 10 recommendations for the 12th HS project. Fact: GUHSD submitted the site preparation plans to DSA. Fact: On July14, 2011, GUHSD Governing Board passed Resolution No.2012-05 which reaffirmed its support for the Superintendent’s recommendations for the 12th HS. The resolution: • Acknowledged that GUHSD had met the enrollment threshold set forth in Proposition U during the 2010/11 school year • Added an additional criterion stipulating that GUHSD would not build the 12th HS until State attendance funding was restored to 2008 levels. This criterion only applied to the 12th HS.
F05:
Resolution No.2012-05 substantially revised the criteria to build the proposed 12th HS in Alpine. Fact: GUHSD Superintendent unilaterally withdrew the building design plans from DSA in the summer of 2012. Fact: At the November 8, 2012 GUHSD Governing Board meeting regarding the building of the 12th HS, the Board: • Ratified the superintendent’s action of pulling the building design plans from DSA • Declared that the enrollment threshold called for in Proposition U must be met again before construction could begin on the 12th HS • Reaffirmed that ADA funding must return to 2008 funding levels before the 12th HS is built.
F06:
Based on Governing Board actions, the proposed construction of the 12th HS will not begin before the third quarter of 2018. There is no certainty that GUHSD will ever build the 12th HS.
Additional Recommendations
22
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
Authorize the preparation and submittal of site and building packages for Phase I building plans for the 12th HS. 33 34 28 GUHSD August 4, 2008 Special Governing Board Meeting Minutes. http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/minutes 29 Prop U Ballot Text. http://proph.build-guhsd.com/PropositionHU/BondHistory/Pages/Bond- History.aspx. San Diego County Registrar of Voters, see footnote 2. U-T Editorial. San Diego March 22, 2010. “Thumb on the scale/ Republicans inject politics into naming of school”. http:www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/22/thumb-on-the-scale/. U-T San Diego April 15, 2010. “Board to revisit Alpine school’s naming process.” http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/15/grossmont-board-to-revisit-high-schools-naming/ 33 GUHSD Minutes February 10, 2011. http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/minutes 34 East County Magazine, February 11, 2011, “Superintendent’s Motion to Delay Alpine High School Sparks Massive Community Outcry” http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/5451 5 A Boundary Committee was formed by the GUHSD and charged with the responsibility of recommending new high school attendance boundaries for the District to accommodate the new 12th HS and to establish a more balanced attendance at all of the high schools in the District. On April 14, 2011, the GUHSD Governing Board directed the Boundary Committee to include a separate report with no 12th HS option.35 The GUHSD Governing Board passed Resolution No. 2012-05 at its July 14, 2011 meeting that reaffirmed its support for the Superintendent’s recommendations pertaining to the 12th HS voted on at the previous February Governing Board meeting. The resolution “acknowledges that the enrollment threshold set forth in Proposition U was met in 2010/11.” The resolution also acknowledges “the long-term need for a new high school in the greater Alpine area.” In addition, the resolution “recognizes that the building of the 12th high school may have a positive impact on enrollment.” The resolution expressed concerns about funding shortfalls based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding and expressed concerns about increased operating costs related to opening a new high school. To establish clarity on the 12th high school project, the Governing Board decided to adopt the following:
R8:
Release the request for construction bids on the site development work once plans are approved by DSA
R9:
Continue the preparation and submittal of building design packages to DSA for review and approval
R10:
Upon the restoration of ADA funding for the District to the level it was at the time Proposition U was passed in 2008, the Governing Board to review and consider resumption of the construction process.36 37 At the November 10, 2011 GUHSD Governing Board meeting, Board members approved proceeding with the Boundary Committee plan option that did not include the 12th HS in Alpine.38 In the summer of 2012, a Unification Committee was formed by concerned Alpine citizens to unify the AUSD with the intention of building a new high school in Alpine.39 On August 16, 2012, the AUSD Board passed a resolution in support of the Alpine community’s effort to petition and to expand the AUSD into a unified K-12 district. The resolution also proposed to “obtain the new unified district’s allocable share of the assets of GUHSD to partially or completely fund construction of a high school to serve the students of the greater Alpine area and fulfill the intent of Propositions H and U.” The resolution criticized the GUHSD Governing Board by stating “the GUHSD Board of Trustees and Superintendent have, during the past year, made it abundantly clear that GUHSD has no intention of constructing a 12th HS in the Alpine/Blossom Valley area pursuant to Propositions H and U.” The resolution stated “…this conduct by the GUHSD 35 GUHSD Minutes April 14, 2011. http:www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/minutes 36 GUHSD Resolution No.2012-05. http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/resolutions 37 GUHSD Minutes July 14, 2011. http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/minutes 38 GUHSD Minutes November 10, 2011. http:www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/minutes 39 SanteePatch/Alpine Petition Drive Seeks Unified District, see footnote #5 6 Trustees violates the public trust and constitutes a betrayal of their fiduciary commitment to the students, parents, citizens, and Tribal Nations in the Alpine/Blossom Valley area who extended their personal and financial support to the passage of Proposition H and Proposition U in reliance on the explicit promise to construct the 12th high school.” 40 41 In mid-2012, the GUHSD Superintendent unilaterally withdrew the building plans from DSA with no prior discussion at a GUHSD Governing Board meeting. This information became public in the fall during the campaign for the GUHSD Governing Board election.42 The superintendent proposed an action item for the 12th HS at the November 8, 2012 GUHSD Governing Board meeting. The item included:
R11:
Recommend retaining the $65 million budget for the 12th HS
R12:
Direct staff to complete Army Corps of Engineers permits
R13:
Direct staff to complete Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) permits
R14:
Seek Governing Board approval for the permits
R15:
Validate the withdrawal of building design plans from DSA
R16:
Place the school construction (including grading) on hold until enrollment thresholds and per pupil funding levels are met and the availability of State facility funding is met. The GUHSD Board approved this action item but deleted reference to facility funding and ratified the withdrawal of building design plans.44 The timeline on the GUHSD Consolidated Proposition H/U Program Schedule for the possible beginning of construction for the 12th HS was pushed out until the 3rd quarter of 2018.45 Despite the passage of two bond propositions that called for the building of a new 12th HS to service the greater Alpine area, the possibility of the new 12th HS school being built remains in limbo. There were obvious management issues by GUHSD staff and a shortage of Proposition H funds passed by the GUHSD voters in March 2004. The GUHSD seemed to address the management issues with the hiring of a Program Manager in 2007, and the passage of Proposition U in November 2008 to cover the funding shortage. The GUHSD expressed concerns about the additional operating costs that the proposed 12th HS would have on the District.46 The District pointed to declining enrollment since 2010, and the impact this had on ADA funding. The Citizen Bond 40 AUSD Agenda August 16, 2012 http://www.alpineschools.net/files/August%2016%Workshop%20Agenda.pdf 41 AUSD Minutes August 30, 2012 http://www.alpineschools.net/files/Aug.%2030%20Agenda%20Outline.pdf 42 East County Magazine, October 13, 2012, “Grand Jury Investigation of GUHSD Board Actions Launched, Trustee Reveals” http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/11383 43 http://proph.build-guhsd.com/Documents/Superintendent%20Recommendations%20- %20Bond%Program%20Review%202012.pdf 44 GUHSD Minutes November 8, 2012. http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/minutes. 45Consolidated Prop H/U Program Schedule http://proph.build-guhsd.com/PropositionHU/ ProgramOverview/Documents/Program%20Schedule%20as%20of%20December9%202012.pdf 46 Grand Jury Interviews with GUHSD Officials 7 Oversight Committee (CBOC) expressed concerns about finances in a March 2013 annual report.47 Many parents and residents in the GUHSD feel that the District has not been transparent in its relationship with the residents of Alpine and Blossom Valley; and, that the GUHSD will not build the 12th HS. It has been reported in the media that many residents feel bond funds were acquired under false pretenses.48 The residents have seen two bond propositions pass with the promise of a new 12th HS to serve the greater Alpine area. The supporters of the 12th HS point out that the GUHSD Governing Board acknowledged that the attendance trigger spelled out in Proposition U was met in 2010-11. Proponents of the 12th HS also argue that current decline in enrollment was forecast to occur in two separate enrollment trend studies sponsored by the District. They also feel the District is ignoring data provided by two separate demographic studies which forecast enrollment climbing in the last half of the decade. Supporters of the 12th HS make the argument that the enrollment projection, performed by the demographer hired by the District for the Boundary Committee, predicted enrollment would begin to increase in 2014-15, whether or not the 12th HS was built. This study by the Boundary Committee also provided a separate analysis that building the 12th HS would attract additional students into the District, helping offset any additional operating costs the 12th HS would incur. Supporters of the 12th HS feel that the GUHSD is ignoring this data. 49 50 51 52 53 The argument is made by supporters of the 12th HS that GUHSD attendance surged after West Hills and Steele Canyon High Schools opened and that new high schools “energize districts.” 54 55 Many supporters of the 12th HS wonder how the GUHSD can express concern about additional operating costs to the District when the District approved the building of a Performing Arts Center at Helix High School instead of a multipurpose facility. GUHSD also built a larger-than-called-for swimming pool at Granite Hills High School and 47 U-T San Diego. “Bond uncertainty concerns Grossmont committee.” March 12, 2013. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/12/grossmont%20schools-bond-oversight/ 48 East County Magazine October 2, 2011. Readers Editorial: “GUHSD Board Ends Hope For New High School in Alpine.” March 2, 2012 comment. http://eastcountymagazine.org/print/7441. Grossmont Union High School District Fall 2007/08 Student Population Forecast. Forecast 2008/09 to 2021/22 http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/component/docman/cat_view/123-educational-services/136- assessment-and-evaluation/137-enrollment-projections 50 GUHSD Boundary Committee Final Report R2 http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/attendance- boundaries/194-boundary-committee 51 GUHSD Projected Enrollment Trendshttp://www.guhsd.net/index.php/attendance-boundaries/194- boundary-committee 52 High School 12-Estimated Impact on District Student Population. June 21, 2011. http://www.guhsd.net/School Boundaries-Boundary CommitteeHistoricalDocumentsEstimated_Impact_DistrictPop_Recovery(1).pdf 53 East County Magazine July 17, 2011 Readers Editorial: “GUHSD Boards Vote to Delay High School Fiscally Short-Sighted”. http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/6708. Grand Jury Interview November 14, 2012 55 News Enterprise. “Alpine Fighting For High School.” August 18, 2011. http:www.newsenterprise.net/article/alpine-fighting-high-school. 8 incurred other athletic facility related expenses throughout the District.56 GUHSD has spent approximately 22 million dollars to acquire the Alpine site, obtain permits, and develop plans for the 12th HS only to suspend construction with no guarantee that the project will be completed.57 58 Supporters of the 12th HS argue that the District is projecting false additional costs by saying that teachers and support staff will be reduced at current high schools when the new high school is opened in Alpine.59 Supporters express concern that the GUHSD Governing Board is intent on overspending bond money so that no funds are left to build the school and that the CBOC has been negligent in their oversight responsibilities.60 61 There were also concerns that the CBOC overstepped its boundaries by expressing concerns about enrollment in 2011.62 63 The GUHSD Governing Board, in 2010, did not follow District policy for naming schools. The attempt to name the 12th HS after former President Reagan is cited by many as the reason GUHSD has suspended the 12th HS project. Supporters of the 12th HS cite an email exchange between a former GUHSD Board member and a member of the AHSCC in 2010 as an example of the political retribution by the GUHSD Board against the residents of Alpine as to why the 12th HS will not be built.64 The GUHSD Governing Board passed a requirement in 2011 calling for ADA funding to return to 2008 levels before building the 12th HS. Supporters of the 12th HS contend that this implies a standard not applied to other bond expenditures in the GUHSD. Supporters of the 12th HS also contend this criterion was inappropriate and not part of either bond proposition.65 FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: In 1997, GUHSD issued Certificates of Participation to fund, among other things, a new high school in Alpine. Fact: GUHSD used the Certificates of Participation funds to instead construct Steele Canyon High School in Jamul. Fact: In 1998, citizens in Alpine formed the Alpine High School Citizens Committee (AHSCC). Grand Jury Interviews August 11, 2012; October 1, 2012; November 13, 2012; November 14, 2012; April 11, 2013 57 http://lamesa.patch.com/articles/it-s-time-for-a-divorce-from-grossmont-union-high-school-district 58 Grand Jury Interviews with GUHSD Officials 59 Grand Jury Interviews November 14, 2012; April 11, 2013 60 Grand Jury Interviews August 11, 2012; October 1, 2012; November 13, 2012; November 14, 2012; April 11, 2013 61 East County Magazine July 17, 2011 Readers Editorial: “GUHSD Boards Vote to Delay High School Fiscally Short-Sighted”. http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/6708. UT San Diego Editorial, March 30, 2011. “School Committee Overstepping Its Bounds”. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/30/school-committee-overstepping-its-bounds/ 63 Grand Jury Interview November 13, 2012. Grand Jury Interviews on August 11, 2012; October 1, 2012; November 13, 2012; November 14, 2012 65 Grand Jury Interviews on August 11, 2012; November 13, 2012. Fact: In 2002, the GUHSD Superintendent addressed the AUSD stating his District’s intent to serve Alpine and build a new 12th HS using Proposition T funds. Fact: Proposition T was scaled back by the Governing Board of GUHSD. Bond language pertaining to building the 12th HS was eliminated. Fact: In November 2002, in addition to Proposition T, AUSD voters had bond propositions V and W on their ballots. Propositions T, V and W all failed.
R17:
Acknowledged that GUHSD had met the enrollment threshold set forth in Proposition U during the 2010/11 school year
R18:
Added an additional criterion stipulating that GUHSD would not build the 12th HS until State attendance funding was restored to 2008 levels. This criterion only applied to the 12th HS.
R19:
Ratified the superintendent’s action of pulling the building design plans from DSA
R20:
Declared that the enrollment threshold called for in Proposition U must be met again before construction could begin on the 12th HS
R21:
Reaffirmed that ADA funding must return to 2008 funding levels before the 12th HS is built.
R22:
Deposit budgeted funds for building the high school into an escrow account.
R23:
Establish and pursue a credible implementation timeline for this project. 13-78: If the Board does not elect to commit to building the 12th HS in Alpine they should take all reasonable steps to cooperate with the Alpine Union School District in support of the unification effort in that community. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) 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
R24:
Deposit budgeted funds for building the high school into an escrow account.
R25:
Establish and pursue a credible implementation timeline for this project. 13-78: If the Board does not elect to commit to building the 12th HS in Alpine they should take all reasonable steps to cooperate with the Alpine Union School District in support of the unification effort in that community. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) 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
13-76:
Make a final decision as to whether or not the District is going to
13-77:
Deposit budgeted funds for building the high school into an
13-78:
they should take all reasonable steps to cooperate with the Alpine
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F01:
Bond initiatives and propositions typically do not provide information as to the cost of principal and interest payments. This amount can be exponentially larger than the original principal in bond measures that employ a CAB structure.
F02:
When school districts divert premiums to unauthorized uses and by artificially inflating interest rates to generate the premium, they are not acting consistent with statutory law and are incurring debt beyond what voters authorized in violation of the California Constitution.
F03:
AB 182, if enacted, will require governing boards of school and community college districts to provide greater transparency to voters concerning: • Whether CABs are proposed and the reasoning for them 20 http://www.pomeradonews.com/2013/01/25/school-bond-legislation-unveiled/ 21 http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/ttc/docs/news130125.pdf 22 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0151-0200/ab_182_bill_20130124_introduced.pdf 6 • Cost comparisons between CIBs and CABs • Total debt service to principal ratios • Mandatory early redemption guarantees • Analysis of the overall bond cost • Underwriter disclosure. This mandatory reporting will provide greater bond referendum clarity for the taxpayers.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
No interest rates greater than 8%
R5:
A debt ratio not to exceed 4 to 1
R6:
Using the Education Code rather than Government Code. 13-80: Hold public meetings to discuss the financial impact on the school district for all future bond proposals. The discussion should include:
R7:
Cost to homeowners in increased property taxes
R8:
Total repayment amount
R9:
What the new issue may do to future bond requirements. 13-81: For all future bond proposals send public notices to all district residents to ensure that the community has adequate notice of school board meetings where bond proposals will be discussed. Meeting notices must be posted in several public locations (e.g., school bulletin boards, school websites, school offices, classrooms and district offices), as defined by the Brown Act. 13-82: For all future bond proposals encourage the PTA or similar organizations to educate their membership in school board policies and procedures. Suggested featured speakers could be school board members or financial experts who can answer questions and share relevant bond information. REQUIREMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) 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
13-79:
Structure future loans to offer more flexibility by allowing a variety of
13-80:
Hold public meetings to discuss the financial impact on the school
13-81:
For all future bond proposals send public notices to all district
13-82:
For all future bond proposals encourage the PTA or similar
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F01:
It is not economically reasonable to relocate the MVT fuel storage and distribution facility to a more environmentally desirable site within the San Diego area. Fact: The MTV facility fuel seepage has contaminated soil and water within the Mission Valley watershed Fact: The MVT owner monitors water quality in test wells located on MVT property and the Qualcomm Stadium parking lots. RWQCB receives and analyzes the data obtained from MVT's groundwater monitoring wells. Fact: The City has on-line access to the soil and water contamination data as posted from measurements collected by the MVT owner. It relies on assessments of this data provided by the RWQCB. Fact: The City Public Utilities Department drilled and operates several groundwater monitoring test wells located on City property on the southern side of the San Diego River adjacent to a Qualcomm Stadium parking lot near the Interstate 805 overpass. Fact: The City operated test wells have found the same types of soil and water contamination as found under the Qualcomm parking lots.
F02:
The City does not have an adequate independent City-owned and operated monitoring capability in the impacted portions of Mission Valley in the areas within and surrounding Qualcomm Stadium that is separate and distinct from those monitoring wells controlled by the MVT owner.
F03:
Results from the two City-operated monitoring wells located on the south side of the San Diego River indicate that the fuel plume is larger than prior data suggests. Fact: The City asserts “Pueblo Water Rights” over the water resources of the San Diego aquifer. Los Angeles and San Diego are the only two cities with Pueblo Water Rights recognized by judicial decisions. Fact: The RWQCB is allowing the MVT operator to utilize the Mission Valley aquifer for mitigation of the fuel plume.
F04:
The City of San Diego should continue to assert Pueblo Water Rights over the Mission Valley aquifer. Fact: The San Diego County RWQCB issued the first cleanup order to the MVT owner in 1992. Fact: The cleanup order requires the remediation of liquid gasoline from the subsurface and groundwater by December 31, 2010, and that the concentrations of dissolved phase petroleum hydrocarbon are reduced to attain pre-contamination conditions by December 31, 2013. Fact: The public has not been informed about the progress of the cleanup efforts. Fact: The MVT owner requested an extension of the deadlines.
F05:
The San Diego public needs to be better informed of status of the Mission Valley watershed due to contamination from MVT petroleum product leakage and the effectiveness of the ongoing contamination abatement and cleanup efforts.
F06:
The City needs an up-to-date long-range plan for oversight of the MVT fuel containment control and stabilization efforts. This plan should identify ways to reduce the possibility of future fuel leakage from this facility. Development of this plan should not be delayed until future settlement of on-going litigation. The plan should take into account necessary actions based on either settlement outcome whether or not in the City’s favor.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
13-73:
Establish a City-owned and operated monitoring capability in the
13-74:
Provide quarterly reports to the public concerning results obtained
13-75:
Develop a long-range plan for oversight of the MVT fuel containment
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F01:
Reclaimed water is a viable resource and its use should be expanded as part of a long-term water strategy.
F02:
It is important to keep the public informed about both the feasibility of water reclamation and its importance in San Diego’s water supply strategy.
F03:
Desalination is a viable local source of water. Plans for use of desalinated water should be expanded as part of a long-term water strategy. Fact: An objective of SDCWA is to have a local emergency water storage capacity of six months.
F04:
Long-term local storage of water for distribution during emergencies is an important component of SDCWA’s water strategy.
F05:
The current City and SDCWA objective of six-month emergency water storage capacity is insufficient.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
13-61:
By October 31, 2013 complete their study, review and evaluation of
13-62:
By November 30, 2013 make a positive decision and vigorously pursue
13-63:
By January 31, 2014, initiate construction of a full-scale version of the
13-64:
By January 31, 2014, decide whether to immediately use the AWP
13-65:
By January 31, 2014, make a positive decision for construction of a
13-66:
Expand ratepayer education and outreach on water policy leading to
13-67:
Continue to pursue a vigorous policy to lessen dependence on
13-68:
Further demonstrate the economic feasibility of expansion of
13-69:
Extend the objective of the water supply Emergency Storage Program
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F01:
The City does not have a specific fund to finance the cost of bike lane installation, maintenance, and accessibility.
F02:
Narrow bike lanes combined with high speed limits present a significant safety danger to cyclists. Fact: The City does not have a bicycle-licensing program or specific funding to initiate one. Find ing 03: Without an identified source of funds, improvements for the biking community will remain static. Fact: Photos taken of the Kearny Villa Road bike lanes show detrimental conditions and a lack of maintenance for safe bicycle travel. Fact: Class 3 (sharrow) bike lanes in downtown San Diego are detrimental to cyclist safety and are generally ignored by the cyclists and motorists.
F04:
The City has failed to properly construct and maintain bike paths and lanes necessary to provide safe travel conditions. Fact: The California Vehicle Code Driver’s Handbook contains specific laws pertaining to bicycle riders. Fact: Bicycle riders on public roads have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists and are subject to the same rules and regulations. Fact: There are too many bicyclists violating the California Vehicle Code due to lack of education or lack of enforcement.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
13-57:
Improve bicycle safety and operational convenience by more frequent
13-58:
Develop and implement a plan, no later than June 30, 2014, to install
13-59:
Update the City's Transportation Plan, by the next budget cycle, to
13-60:
Identify a funding source to finance the cost of bike lane installation,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F01:
DSB’s current policy and practice fails to meet accepted national immunization standards, including those of the CDC and Federal Bureau of Prisons guidelines for inmates. DBS does not follow the most basic and widely accepted public health standards for women in developed countries. Fact: After counseling, inmates’ participation in immunization programs increases. Fact: Inmates are generally less educated than the public and score below the public in basic reading literacy. Fact: Inmates are members of the national health disparities. They experience greater social and/or economic obstacles to health and are adversely affected. Fact: Inmates who participate in health-related programs while incarcerated have lower recidivism rates and are more likely to maintain health-conscious behaviors.
F02:
DSB failure to provide effective counseling about the benefits of specific immunizations ensures that the inmates will underutilize the immunization program. Fact: San Diego Regional Immunization Registry (SDIR), part of the California Immunization Registry (CAIR): • Meets the requirements for Meaningful Use • Is a web-based, immunization tracking system • Allows health care providers and other authorized users to access an individual’s State record of immunizations • Allows health care providers to determine the need for other immunizations. Fact: The Jails Information Management System (JIMS) is limited to information from jails in San Diego County. It does not comply with the Federal Government’s regulations for Meaningful Use.
F3:
DSB’s failure to track immunizations using the CAIR-SDIR system increases the cost of tracking and causes delays in evaluating inmate immunization status and implementing an effective immunization program. Fact: Due to the often-rapid turnover of adults in detention, inmates may not complete the series of immunizations before discharge. Fact: DSB’s current health assessment is for inmates who remain in custody beyond one year. Fact: The 1988/89 San Diego County Grand Jury Report recommended study and consideration of transferring administration of the medical care in the detention facilities from the Sheriff’s Department to the San Diego County Health Department. Fact: SDPHD provided vaccine to DSB during the H1N1 influenza outbreak. Fact: Maximum capacity for inmates, aged 19 to 75, housed by DSB in seven facilities, is over 5,000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Td/Tdap) vaccination • Administer a one-time dose of Tdap to adults younger than age 65 years who have not received Tdap previously or for whom vaccine status is unknown to replace one of the 10-year Td boosters. • Tdap is specifically recommended for the following persons: − pregnant women more than 20 weeks’ gestation, − adults, regardless of age, who are close contacts of infants younger than age 12 months (e.g., parents, grandparents, or child care providers), and − health-care personnel. • Tdap can be administered regardless of interval since the most recent tetanus or diphtheria containing vaccine. • Pregnant women not vaccinated during pregnancy should receive Tdap immediately postpartum. • Adults 65 years and older may receive Tdap. • Adults with unknown or incomplete history of completing a 3-dose primary vaccination series with Td-containing vaccines should begin or complete a primary vaccination series. Tdap should be substituted for a single dose of Td in the vaccination series with Tdap preferred as the first dose. • For unvaccinated adults, administer the first 2 doses at least 4 weeks apart and the third dose 6–12 months after the second. • If incompletely vaccinated (i.e., less than 3 doses), administer remaining doses. Refer to the ACIP statement for recommendations for administering Td/Tdap as prophylaxis in wound management (See footnote 1).
F4:
Developing a robust immunization program for DSB will be very complicated. It will require training and input from multiple sources and disciplines to identify workable logistics.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Varicella vaccination • All adults without evidence of immunity to varicella (as defined below) should receive 2 doses of single-antigen varicella vaccine or a second dose if they have received only 1 dose. • Special consideration for vaccination should be given to those who − have close contact with persons at high risk for severe disease (e.g., health-care personnel and family contacts of persons with immunocompromising conditions) or − are at high risk for exposure or transmission (e.g., teachers; child care employees; residents and staff members of institutional settings, including correctional institutions; college students; military personnel; adolescents and adults living in households with children; nonpregnant women of childbearing age; and international travelers). • Pregnant women should be assessed for evidence of varicella immunity. Women who do not have evidence of immunity should receive the first dose of varicella vaccine upon completion or termination of pregnancy and before discharge from the health-care facility. The second dose should be administered 4–8 weeks after the first dose. • Evidence of immunity to varicella in adults includes any of the following: − documentation of 2 doses of varicella vaccine at least 4 weeks apart; − U.S.-born before 1980 (although for health-care personnel and pregnant women, birth before 1980 should not be considered evidence of immunity); 15 − history of varicella based on diagnosis or verification of varicella by a health-care provider (for a patient reporting a history of or having an atypical case, a mild case, or both, healthcare providers should seek either an epidemiologic link to a typical varicella case or to a
Additional Recommendations
20
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination • Two vaccines are licensed for use in females, bivalent HPV vaccine (HPV2) and quadrivalent HPV vaccine (HPV4), and one HPV vaccine for use in males (HPV4). • For females, either HPV4 or HPV2 is recommended in a 3-dose series for routine vaccination at 11 or 12 years of age, and for those 13 through 26 years of age, if not previously vaccinated. • For males, HPV4 is recommended in a 3-dose series for routine vaccination at 11 or 12 years of age, and for those 13 through 21 years of age, if not previously vaccinated. Males 22 through 26 years of age may be vaccinated. • HPV vaccines are not live vaccines and can be administered to persons who are immunocompromised as a result of infection (including HIV infection), disease, or medications. Vaccine is recommended for immunocompromised persons through age 26 years who did not get any or all doses when they were younger. The immune response and vaccine efficacy might be less than that in immunocompetent persons. • Men who have sex with men (MSM) might especially benefit from vaccination to prevent condyloma and anal cancer. HPV4 is recommended for MSM through age 26 years who did not get any or all doses when they were younger. • Ideally, vaccine should be administered before potential exposure to HPV through sexual activity; however, persons who are sexually active should still be vaccinated consistent with age-based recommendations. HPV vaccine can be administered to persons with a history of genital warts, abnormal Papanicolaou test, or positive HPV DNA test. • A complete series for either HPV4 or HPV2 consists of 3 doses. The second dose should be administered 1–2 months after the first dose; the third dose should be administered 6 months after the first dose (at least 24 weeks after the first dose). • Although HPV vaccination is not specifically recommended for health-care personnel (HCP) based on their occupation, HCP should receive the HPV vaccine if they are in the recommended age group.
R6:
Zoster vaccination • A single dose of zoster vaccine is recommended for adults 60 years of age and older • regardless of whether they report a prior episode of herpes zoster. Although the vaccine is • licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use among and can be administered to • persons 50 years and older, ACIP recommends that vaccination begins at 60 years of age. • Persons with chronic medical conditions may be vaccinated unless their condition constitutes a contraindication, such as pregnancy or severe immunodeficiency. • Although zoster vaccination is not specifically recommended for health-care personnel (HCP), HCP should receive the vaccine if they are in the recommended age group.
R7:
Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccination • Adults born before 1957 generally are considered immune to measles and mumps. All adults born in 1957 or later should have documentation of 1 or more doses of MMR vaccine unless they have a medical contraindication to the vaccine, laboratory evidence of immunity to each of the three diseases, or documentation of provider-diagnosed measles or mumps disease. For rubella, documentation of provider-diagnosed disease is not considered acceptable evidence of immunity. Measles component: • A routine second dose of MMR vaccine, administered a minimum of 28 days after the first dose, is recommended for adults who • are students in postsecondary educational institutions; − work in a health-care facility; or plan to travel internationally. • Persons who received inactivated (killed) measles vaccine or measles vaccine of unknown type from 1963 to 1967 should be revaccinated with 2 doses of MMR vaccine. Mumps component: • A routine second dose of MMR vaccine, administered a minimum of 28 days after the first dose, is recommended for adults who • are students in postsecondary educational institutions; − work in a health-care facility; or • plan to travel internationally. • Persons vaccinated before 1979 with either killed mumps vaccine or mumps vaccine of unknown type who are at high risk for mumps infection (e.g., persons who are working in a health-care facility) should be considered for revaccination with 2 doses of MMR vaccine. 16 • persons working with HAV-infected primates or with HAV in a research laboratory setting; persons with chronic liver disease and persons who receive clotting factor concentrates; persons traveling to or working in countries that have high or intermediate endemicity of hepatitis A; and unvaccinated persons who anticipate close personal contact (e.g., household or regular babysitting) with an international adoptee during the first 60 days after arrival in the United States from a country with high or intermediate endemicity. (See footnote 1 for more information on travel recommendations). The first dose of the 2-dose hepatitis A vaccine series should be administered as soon as adoption is planned, ideally 2 or more weeks before the arrival of the adoptee. • Single-antigen vaccine formulations should be administered in a 2-dose schedule at either 0 and 6–12 months (Havrix), or 0 and 6–18 months (Vaqta). If the combined hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccine (Twinrix) is used, administer 3 doses at 0, 1, and 6 months; alternatively, a 4-dose schedule may be used, administered on days 0, 7, and 21–30 followed by a booster dose at month 12. Rubella component: • For women of childbearing age, regardless of birth year, rubella immunity should be determined. If there is no evidence of immunity, women who are not pregnant should be vaccinated. Pregnant women who do not have evidence of immunity should receive MMR vaccine upon completion or termination of pregnancy and before discharge from the healthcare facility. • Health-care personnel born before 1957: • For unvaccinated health-care personnel born before 1957 who lack laboratory evidence of measles, mumps, and/or rubella immunity or laboratory confirmation of disease, health-care facilities should consider routinely vaccinating personnel with 2 doses of MMR vaccine at the appropriate interval for measles and mumps or 1 dose of MMR vaccine for rubella.
R8:
Pneumococcal polysaccharide (PPSV) vaccination • Vaccinate all persons with the following indications: − age 65 years and older without a history of PPSV vaccination; − adults younger than 65 years with chronic lung disease (including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, and asthma); chronic cardiovascular diseases; diabetes mellitus; chronic liver disease (including cirrhosis); alcoholism; cochlear implants; cerebrospinal fluid leaks; immunocompromising conditions; and functional or anatomic asplenia (e.g., sickle cell disease and other hemoglobinopathies, congenital or acquired asplenia, splenic dysfunction, or splenectomy [if elective splenectomy is planned, vaccinate at least 2 weeks before surgery]); − residents of nursing homes or long-term care facilities; and adults who smoke cigarettes. • Persons with asymptomatic or symptomatic HIV infection should be vaccinated as soon as possible after their diagnosis. • When cancer chemotherapy or other immunosuppressive therapy is being considered, the interval between vaccination and initiation of immunosuppressive therapy should be at least 2 weeks. Vaccination during chemotherapy or radiation therapy should be avoided. • Routine use of PPSV is not recommended for American Indians/Alaska Natives or other persons younger than 65 years of age unless they have underlying medical conditions that are PPSV indications. However, public health authorities may consider recommending PPSV for American Indians/Alaska Natives who are living in areas where the risk for invasive pneumococcal disease is increased.
R9:
Revaccination with PPSV • One-time revaccination 5 years after the first dose is recommended for persons 19 through 64 years of age with chronic renal failure or nephrotic syndrome; functional or anatomic asplenia (e.g., sickle cell disease or splenectomy); and for persons with immunocompromising conditions. • Persons who received PPSV before age 65 years for any indication should receive another dose of the vaccine at age 65 years or later if at least 5 years have passed since their previous dose. • No further doses are needed for persons vaccinated with PPSV at or after age 65 years.
R10:
Meningococcal vaccination • Administer 2 doses of meningococcal conjugate vaccine quadrivalent (MCV4) at least 2 months apart to adults with functional asplenia or persistent complement component deficiencies. • HIV-infected persons who are vaccinated should also receive 2 doses. • Administer a single dose of meningococcal vaccine to microbiologists routinely exposed to isolates of Neisseria meningitidis, military recruits, and persons who travel to or live in countries in which meningococcal disease is hyperendemic or epidemic. • First-year college students up through age 21 years who are living in residence halls should be vaccinated if they have not received a dose on or after their 16th birthday. 17 • MCV4 is preferred for adults with any of the preceding indications who are 55 years old and younger; meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine (MPSV4) is preferred for adults 56 years and older. • Revaccination with MCV4 every 5 years is recommended for adults previously vaccinated with MCV4 or MPSV4 who remain at increased risk for infection (e.g., adults with anatomic or functional asplenia or persistent complement component deficiencies).
R11:
Hepatitis A vaccination • Vaccinate any person seeking protection from hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection and persons with any of the following indications: − men who have sex with men and persons who use injection drugs; • laboratory-confirmed case or evidence of laboratory confirmation, if it was performed at the time of acute disease); − history of herpes zoster based on diagnosis or verification of herpes zoster by a health-care provider; or − laboratory evidence of immunity or laboratory confirmation of disease.
R12:
Hepatitis B vaccination
R13:
Selected conditions for which Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine may be used • 1 dose of Hib vaccine should be considered for persons who have sickle cell disease, leukemia, or HIV infection, or who have anatomic or functional asplenia if they have not previously received Hib vaccine.
R14:
Immunocompromising conditions • Inactivated vaccines generally are acceptable (e.g., pneumococcal, meningococcal, and influenza [inactivated influenza vaccine]), and live vaccines generally are avoided in persons with immune deficiencies or immunocompromising conditions. Information on specific conditions is available at http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/acip-list.htm. 18
13-27:
Develop a robust catch-up immunization program for the County jails
13-28:
Develop a counseling program to educate and promote the benefits of
13-29:
In partnership with SDPHD, seek funding from the recently released
13-30:
With training from SDPHD, begin use of CAIR-SDIR to enter and
13-32:
Begin the catch-up immunization of sentenced inmates within their
13-33:
In compliance with CDC recommendations, immunize pregnant
13-34:
Provide Tdap vaccine to all inmates except those identified as being
13-35:
In compliance with CDC recommendations, vaccinate with MMR all
13-36:
In compliance with the recent CDC recommendations, screen all
13-37:
Screen all inmates for HIV.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F01:
As recently as November 2012, SDUSD employees put politically oriented messages on school-owned internet websites.
F02:
SDUSD is not monitoring all information and postings put on SDUSD and local school websites.
F03:
The SDUSD and local school websites do not generally have an overseer who is familiar with the law or one who is willing or able to block unsuitable content.
F04:
Lack of SDUSD resources does not justify violating California Education Code 7054(a) and SDUSD policies.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
13-22:
Comply with <u>California Education Code 7054(a)</u>, which states, "No
13-23:
Ensure there is closer monitoring of all school-owned websites to
13-24:
<b>Ensure that there is closer monitoring of The Education Issues Action</b>
13-25:
Develop a more robust monitoring system to ensure that district
13-26:
Develop a plan to restrict access to the SDUSD and individual school
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar
F2:
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
F3:
The City and its Public Works staff for this achievement of outstanding cooperative performance in the development and successful operation of the Miramar Landfill enterprise serving to benefit the citizens of our County. RESOURCE MATERIALS:
F4:
Various Internet Television Reports from CW6 News, ABC TV 10, Fox 5 News, and KUSI News.
F5:
Navy.mil website the source for Navy news
F6:
Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System [www.dvidshub.net]
F7:
City of San Diego Environmental Services Department
F8:
City of San Diego Long-Term Resource Management Options Strategic Plan
F9:
Interviews and site visits 8 APPENDIX – Definitions and Terminology CO Carbon dioxide 2 Cogen Cogeneration KWh Kilowatt hour MBC Metropolitan Biosolids Center MBC Cogen MBC Cogeneration Facility MCAS Marine Corps Air Station MP2 MCAS Miramar Power Plant MSW Municipal Solid Waste MWh Megawatt hour NAVFACS Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest NC Cogen North City Water Reclamation Plant and Cogeneration Facility PPA Power Purchase Agreement 9
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F01:
The County appears to perform a good job of serving the needs of the land surveying community. Fact: The City generates survey documents for projects within the City needed by private practice professional surveyors and the public. Fact: Locating physical records through the City Records Office is time consuming and frustrating to professional surveyors. Fact: The City currently utilizes an antiquated records retrieval system. Fact: Surveyors use specialized jargon that may not be familiar to a clerk trained in general record retrieval. Fact: In some cases, documents known to exist have been misplaced or lost. Moreover, documents known to exist were reported as unavailable because an undertrained clerk did not recognize the identifiers cited in the request. Fact: Current policy for serving the public is that a request for documents starts at the 2nd Floor of the City Operations Building. If documents are not found at the 2nd Floor, an appointment can be made to research documents at the Field Engineering Office on Aero Drive.
F02:
Many of the allegations and accusations about access to survey records were aimed at the City Records Office known as the 2nd Floor.
F03:
Physical storage of maps and microfiche files at both Aero Drive and the 2nd Floor is chaotic to the casual observer. The filing system tends to depend on the memory of the clerks and relies on 1950’s technology and library practice.
F04:
Because the professional land survey community is a small percentage of the population served by the City Records Office, many members of this community accuse upper management of not listening to or caring about the private sector surveyors who do research in City Records.
F05:
The City land survey records system is difficult to use and results in extra work, costing both the private and public sectors additional money. Fact: City storage areas of originals and copies of maps and other documents on paper, Mylar and velum lacked visible fire protection systems.
F06:
This apparent lack of fire protection and personnel fire safety is disturbing. Fact: Tie point sheets were created prior to implementation of the California Professional Land Surveyors Act. These are considered historical documents. Originals are not available to the public. Copies will be made upon request for a fee. Fact: Field notes are not included in formal survey records. Fact: Some private sector surveyors want easier access to tie point sheets and field notes. Fact: DSD recently elevated the City Land Surveyor to an unclassified management (non-civil service) position. The City Land Surveyor advises the Directors and Deputy Directors about current issues, challenges, and potential process improvements. Fact: The Director of Development Services and the Director of Public Works seem to recognize the need to upgrade and improve how the City goes about land surveying. Fact: City Records is overseen by personnel with IT background. Fact: The City Records Office and Field Engineering Office do take Public Records Act Requests seriously. They understand the law and comply with the law to the best of their ability.
F07:
There appears to be no systemic problem with private surveyors seeking and obtaining copies of records they want. In the past there may have been failures of communication. There may have been misunderstandings about what the City can and should provide to the public to private surveyors.
F08:
Recent changes in personnel may help alleviate lack of communication between the City and industry workers. Cooperation is likely to improve. Regular conversations about issues are likely to dispel misunderstandings.
F09:
The current City records access system is antiquated and cumbersome. The City needs to make changes to simplify the records acquisition process.
F10:
It may be inappropriate to place IT personnel in charge of records. Though IT is an important component of records keeping, an expert in IT may not have the expertise to implement a user-friendly records access system. Fact: Survey monuments belong to the public. Fact: On-going City development and capital improvement projects disrupt existing survey monuments.
F11:
The City has a responsibility to make sure survey monuments are being preserved properly. The City has a responsibility in the plan-check and permitting process and in administering private contracts for public works to be sure existing monuments are accounted for and new monuments are placed and properly recorded when needed.
F12:
The City Records Office should make available on line access to all of the documents it manages related to development, permits and land surveying. City public documents should be available on line in a searchable database.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
13-13:
Assign a specific individual to be responsible for identifying and
13-14:
Develop an action plan to identify suitable hardware and software to
13-15:
Starting in the next budget cycle, and continuing over the next five
13-16:
Develop an action plan to improve fire protection and personnel fire
13-17:
Implement improved fire protection in all areas where land survey
13-18:
Implement a program designed to improve customer service in the
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F01:
SDCJ is a well run facility. Fact: Prior to AB109, inmates served sentences of a year or less in SDCJ. Post AB109 the longest sentence is 1,065 days.
F1:
The electrical crowd control shields need to be repaired or replaced to protect both the staff and the inmates.
F02:
AB109 has caused increased length of stay with increased daily resident population that will likely weaken the ability of existing sworn staff to manage the inmate population.
F03:
Support staff will be needed to develop expanding programs. Fact: There is only one armory. This presents a problem due to the size of the facility.
F04:
Response time with only one armory creates a safety issue for both staff and inmates. RECOMENDATIONS The 2012-2013 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends the San Diego County Sheriff: 13-46: Hire additional sworn staff to maintain staff to inmate ratio as anticipated inmate population increases. 13-47: Add additional classrooms by December 31, 2013 to facilitate the increase in inmate population and allow for more program offerings for longer-serving inmates. 13-48: Prepare a plan, by December 31, 2013, to add a second fully equipped armory at the other side of the facility to expedite response time in an emergency. FACILITY 8 The Grand Jury inspected Facility 8 (FAC 8) on September 7, 2012. FAC 8 is a medium security facility built in conjunction with the GBDF. It is a mirror image of the cell housing units found at GBDF. The County operates the 200-bed Facility, which is adjacent to a 1000-bed facility that is leased to a private operation Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). One of the housing units leased by CCA was returned to the County in 2006. Renovations to bring that housing unit up to County standards were begun immediately. The remaining leased housing units will be returned to the County in December of 2015. At that time, the Sheriff’s Department will be able to use all 1200 beds in this facility. The additional housing will require renovations plus the addition of more sworn and support staff. The Grand Jury found FAC 8 well maintained although stark in appearance. At the time of our visit, FAC 8 housed 200 inmates. Even though FAC 8 was designed for medium- 13 risk inmates, during the Grand Jury’s visit, we were told that high-risk inmates are incarcerated here. These high-risk inmates are kept isolated from the general population. At a daily sick call, nurses from GBDF provide for medical needs. A doctor and a psychiatrist are present once a week for sick call. Serious ailments and dental care are treated at GBDF. Meals are prepared at GBDF by the kitchen staff and delivered three times a day to FAC 8. There is a small landscaped yard where each inmate has the opportunity to receive two 30 minute supervised outdoor visits per week. The newly refurbished exercise yard allows for at least three hours per week of recreation/exercise for inmates. The recently redesigned multi-purpose room allows for drug dependency counseling, religious services, and educational programs. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Facility 8 does not have a fully equipped armory.
F8:
There is a small landscaped yard where each inmate has the opportunity to receive two 30 minute supervised outdoor visits per week. The newly refurbished exercise yard allows for at least three hours per week of recreation/exercise for inmates. The recently redesigned multi-purpose room allows for drug dependency counseling, religious services, and educational programs. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Facility 8 does not have a fully equipped armory. Finding 01: The distance between Facility 8 and GBDF dictates the need for an armory located on-site.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
There is a small landscaped yard where each inmate has the opportunity to receive two 30 minute supervised outdoor visits per week. The newly refurbished exercise yard allows for at least three hours per week of recreation/exercise for inmates. The recently redesigned multi-purpose room allows for drug dependency counseling, religious services, and educational programs. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: Facility 8 does not have a fully equipped armory.
Additional Recommendations
19
Not linked to specific findings.
13-38:
Hire additional sworn staff to maintain staff to inmate ratio as
13-39:
Repair or purchase two electrical crowd control shields by
13-40:
Acquire newer computers and software for the computer lab by
13-41:
Prepare a plan and build additional classrooms by June 30, 2014 to
13-42:
Hire additional teachers as programs expand.
13-43:
Purchase and install a new video camera system to cover the blind
13-44:
Hire additional sworn staff to maintain staff to inmate ratio as
13-45:
Add fencing and additional surveillance cameras to the delivery area
13-46:
Hire additional sworn staff to maintain staff to inmate ratio as
13-47:
Add additional classrooms by December 31, 2013 to facilitate the
13-48:
Prepare a plan, by December 31, 2013, to add a second fully equipped
13-49:
Provide a fully equipped armory by December 31, 2013 for the
13-50:
Prepare a plan to provide a teleconferencing program by
13-51:
Expedite the delivery and installation of a doublewide mobile home to
13-52:
Resurface the blacktop area used for outdoor activities immediately
13-53:
Prepare a plan to repaint buildings inside and outside by
13-54:
Resurface blacktop areas by October 31, 2013 in regard to safety
13-55:
Prepare a plan to replace textbooks, refinish desks, repaint classroom
13-56:
Locate a larger classroom and acquire more computers by
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F01:
The City continues to be dependent on tax increment redevelopment funds for a substantial amount of its operating budget. Fact: The City inconsistently recorded its outsourced legal-service costs related to RDA dissolution and Successor Agency operations between the Attorney Services Account and the Professional Services Account. Fact: The City does not record outsourced legal services costs in a manner required by ROPS reporting requirements.
F02:
The City often records legal services costs incorrectly to the RDA, the Successor Agency and/or City accounts. Fact: The City based shared labor costs on estimated time records.
F03:
The RDA’s administrative costs for shared labor are inaccurate. Fact: The DOF mistakenly approved some Enforceable Obligations in ROPS I and ROPS II that were subsequently funded by the CAC. The DOF later denied these obligations in ROPS III. Fact: The City has understated its RDA expenses in FY2010-11 by $1.7M. Fact: The City comingled shared labor costs related to redevelopment activities with the City’s General Fund. Fact: Actual payments reported on the City’s ROPS I and ROPS II reconciliation schedules did not agree with actual financial records.
F04:
The City’s ROPS I and ROPS II submissions were inaccurate.
F05:
Inadequate accounting, and especially incorrect reporting of shared labor costs, prevented the City from preparing accurate and timely ROPS submissions. Fact: The City’s timekeeping system does not currently allow employee time sheets to be electronically approved by a supervisor. Fact: Employees may make unauthorized adjustments to time sheets after supervisor’s approval, but prior to payroll processing.
F06:
The City timekeeping system and procedures are flawed and they are open to altered entries. Fact: An independent audit for the period ending Jan 31, 2012 noted that “the current format of the bank reconciliation makes reconciliation with the general ledger difficult and it lacked the proper approval.” Fact: An independent audit for the period ending Jan 31, 2012, stated the City made an RDA fund balance restatement to adjust prior year’s expenditures.
F07:
The City’s accounting procedures regarding RDA funds were flawed. Fact: On June 14, 2012, the Tax Allocation Bonds insured rating was downgraded from ‘A3’ to ‘Ba1’. Fact: As of June 30, 2012, the Successor Agency’s Long Term Debt, was $39.1M. Fact: The DOF has continued to deny RPTTF funding for many items claimed by the Successor Agency on its ROPS submissions.
F08:
There is no guarantee that RPTTF funds will be sufficient to repay the Successor Agency’s debt. Fact: As of June 30, 2012, the Successor Agency’s total assets were $25.2M compared to $44.7M in liabilities, for a total net assets deficit of ($19.5M) Fact: The City, under protest, made a payment in July 2012 of $372,115 to the CAC as part of the clawback of unqualified Enforceable Obligations in ROPS I. Fact: The City, using bond proceeds, made a Housing Authority debt service payment in November 2012 of $533,092. Fact: The City’s ROPS III submission shows an outstanding debt for redevelopment activities of $111M and a payment deficit of $2.6M. Fact: The City’s ROPS 13-14A submission shows an outstanding debt for redevelopment activities of $40M and a payment deficit of $1.5M.
F09:
The City’s redevelopment deficits, shown in the ROPS submissions and audited financial statements, are evidence of the City’s growing fiscal stress.
Additional Recommendations
21
Not linked to specific findings.
R10:
Examination of financial data provided by the City Manager in response to follow-up questions
R11:
Independent financial statement and audit for Imperial Beach and Successor Agency. As a result of the preliminary investigation, the Grand Jury decided that some aspects of the complaint had merit; i.e., involving nontransparent and/or administrative or ethically suspect dealings in certain budget areas. The Grand Jury then conducted a more thorough investigation. The Grand Jury asked OAAS to conduct a formal audit to investigate the accounting procedures for the City’s General Fund and RDA. The audit focused on the City’s finances in the “Non-departmental category” of general fund expenses involving redevelopment labor and professional service charges. The object of the audit was to determine if the RDA’s labor and legal expenses were adequately supported and properly budgeted, recorded, and allocated. The scope of the audit included a review of the RDA’s and City’s labor and legal financial records for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11 and FY 2012-13 to date. OAAS conducted the audit in conformance with the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing prescribed by the Institute of Internal Auditors as required by California Government Code, Section 1236. They performed the audit using the following methods:
R12:
Evaluated City controls over processing labor expenses
R13:
Reviewed and analyzed the process of allocating City shared labor cost to the RDA and Successor Agency
R14:
Examined financial records for labor 3
R15:
Investigated significant variances through inquiries to key City personnel, and review of supporting documentation
R16:
Selected and reviewed supporting documentation for a judgmental sample of recorded labor and legal transactions to determine whether transactions were properly supported, approved, and recorded.
R17:
Make an adjusting journal entry to reclassify legal costs related to the RDA dissolution and the Successor Agency operations from the Professional Services Account to the Attorney Services Account
R18:
Make an adjusting journal entry to reclassify legal costs related to City operations from the RDA and Successor Agency’s accounts to City accounts
R19:
Develop a process to ensure that legal services are recorded consistently and correctly
R20:
Implement two accounts for recording legal services, one for legal services related to litigation and another for legal services related to general legal representation. Transfer of RDA Expenses in FY 2010-11 In FY 2010-11, the City transferred a total of $1.7 million of RDA expenses, including $916,518 in labor cost, and $20,234 in miscellaneous cost, from the RDA non-housing funds to the City’s General Fund. According to City management, the transfer of expenses was done in accordance with the City Services Reimbursement Agreement (CSRA). The CSRA is a loan agreement between the City and the Agency and does not 10 justify the transfer of expenses from the RDA to the City. As a result, the City understated the RDA’s expenses in FY 2010-11 by $1.7 million. In March 2013, the DOF questioned the $1.7 million transfer in its review of the RDA’s cash balances available for distribution to the taxing entities. The DOF concluded that the City did not provide sufficient documentation to validate the transfer and the RDA’s cash balances should be adjusted by $1.7 million. However, after the “Meet and Confer”13 process, the DOF reversed its determination. The DOF indicated that the date of the transfer was not within the scope of the DOF review. Further, the DOF stated that the California State Controller’s Office has the authority to clawback assets that were inappropriately transferred to the City. Since these transfers are still in question, the City should consider restating its financial statements for FY 2010-11. City Shared Labor Cost Was Not Allocated to the Successor Agency OAAS found that the City did not allocate shared labor costs of the administrative employees to the Successor Agency for the period of February 1 through June 30, 2012. The City comingled labor costs related to the redevelopment activities with City records. As a result, the Successor Agency’s labor expenses reported in FY 2011-12 were understated. According to City management, the legislation was not clear on how expenses should be reported after the RDA’s dissolution. Based on the audit results, the Grand Jury concluded:
R21:
In order to properly track costs, City expenses related to the redevelopment activities should be allocated to the Successor Agency.
R22:
The City should identify labor costs related to the redevelopment activities for the period of February 1 through June 30, 2012 and make an adjusting journal entry to transfer this cost from the City’s General Fund to the Successor Agency fund. Lack of Controls Over the Time Sheet Approval Process City employees complete electronic time sheets in a commercial time accounting system. Supervisors approve time sheets by sending an approval email to the payroll administrator. OAAS noted that employees might make unauthorized adjustments to time, after supervisors have approved, but prior to payroll processing the approved time sheets. As a result, an employee’s labor expenses may be in error. The current application cannot electronically approve time sheets. Electronic approval of time sheet records and automated controls that prevent time adjustments after supervisor’s approval is an integral part of a strong system of internal controls. The City should implement an employee timekeeping system that provides for electronic approval of time sheets. 13 “Meet and Confer” refers to the administrative procedure for adjudicating disputes between the RDA and the DOF. Other Audit Findings City Shared Labor Cost Was Allocated Based on the Estimated Records Prior to July 1, 2012, the City based the allocation of shared labor cost of administrative employees to the RDA and Successor Agency on the budgeted allocation percentages for each position. Every year, City management determined budgeted allocation percentages based on estimating the prior year’s time spent by the administrative employees on RDA activities. As a result, actual time spent on RDA activities could vary from the estimated time. The City shared labor cost would be incorrectly allocated to the RDA or the Successor Agency. Based on the audit, the Grand Jury believes that the City should instead allocate actual time spent on RDA activities and conduct a periodic study of time allocated for shared cost employees. The Grand Jury believes that use of estimated labor costs rather than actual time allocated labor costs for shared labor is not a proper accounting procedure. The City should update its time charging system and approval procedure to allow required segregation of labor costs to the Successor Agency. ROPS I and ROPS II Include Unqualified Enforceable Obligations The OAAS audit found that ROPS I and ROPS II include unqualified Enforceable Obligations related to labor cost. Specifically, ROPS I includes $75,000 in the Housing Agreement and $200,000 in the CSRA. ROPS II includes $90,000 in the Housing Agreement and $240,000 in the CSRA. The Housing Agreement is a contract between the Imperial Beach Housing Authority and the City. Since the Successor Agency is not a party to this agreement, the claimed amount does not constitute an Enforceable Obligation. Further, the CSRA is a loan agreement between the Successor Agency and the City. Therefore, the claimed amount does not constitute an Enforceable Obligation. The DOF mistakenly approved some Enforceable Obligations in ROPS I and ROPS II. They were subsequently funded by the County Auditor and Controller. The DOF later denied these obligations in ROPS III. Inaccurate Data Were Reported on the ROPS I and ROPS II Reconciliation Schedules After each ROPS reporting period, the Successor Agency is required to reconcile actually paid obligations with the estimated obligations reported on a previous ROPS. As listed in Table 6 below, the audit found that actual payments reported on ROPS I and ROPS II reconciliation schedules do not agree with the actual financial records. Table 6. Reconciliation of Enforceable Obligations Expense Financial ROPS I Financial ROPS II Description Records (02/12- Reconciliation Records Reconciliation 06/12) (01/12-06/12) (07/12-12/12) (07/12-12/12) Labor $88,17214 $1,337,496 $217,510 $436,826 Litigation $26,01615 $76,510 $354,61215 $70,343 14 Amount is misstated. Amount is an estimate determined by OAAS through review of payments made to the City Legal Counsel and RDA Special Counsel. According to City management, the Successor Agency reported obligations that were approved by DOF and funded by the CAC as actual payments on ROPS I and ROPS II reconciliation schedules. City management stated that it was their understanding that legislation at that time did not require reporting actual amounts from their financial records on the reconciliation schedule. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: The City pays just over 10% of its personnel labor costs from redevelopment funds. Fact: The City’s redevelopment budget is equivalent to slightly more than 50% of its General Fund.
R23:
Make an adjusting journal entry to reclassify legal cost related to the RDA dissolution and the Successor Agency operations from the Professional Services Account to the Attorney Services Account.
R24:
Make an adjusting journal entry to reclassify legal costs related to City operations from the RDA and Successor Agency’s accounts to City accounts.
R25:
Implement two accounts for recording legal services, one for legal services related to litigation and another for legal services related to general legal representation.
R26:
Develop a process to ensure that legal services are recorded correctly. 13-87: By the end of CY 2013, restate financial statements for FY 2010-11. 13-88: By the end of CY 2013, identify labor costs related to RDA activities for the period of February 1 through June 30, 2012 and make an adjusting journal entry to transfer this cost from the City’s General Fund to the Successor Agency fund. 13-89: Develop a timekeeping system or work with their current vendor’s system support to automate the time sheet approval process and to implement automated controls that prevent employees from adjusting time sheets after supervisor’s approval. 13-90: Begin immediately to increase the accuracy of their ROPS submission procedures to comply with DOF requirements. 13-91: Consider getting help from their State representatives or County resources in the ROPS submission and settlement process. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under 15 the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) 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
R27:
Make an adjusting journal entry to reclassify legal cost related to the RDA dissolution and the Successor Agency operations from the Professional Services Account to the Attorney Services Account.
R28:
Make an adjusting journal entry to reclassify legal costs related to City operations from the RDA and Successor Agency’s accounts to City accounts.
R29:
Implement two accounts for recording legal services, one for legal services related to litigation and another for legal services related to general legal representation.
R30:
Develop a process to ensure that legal services are recorded correctly. 13-87: By the end of CY 2013, restate financial statements for FY 2010-11. 13-88: By the end of CY 2013, identify labor costs related to RDA activities for the period of February 1 through June 30, 2012 and make an adjusting journal entry to transfer this cost from the City’s General Fund to the Successor Agency fund. 13-89: Develop a timekeeping system or work with their current vendor’s system support to automate the time sheet approval process and to implement automated controls that prevent employees from adjusting time sheets after supervisor’s approval. 13-90: Begin immediately to increase the accuracy of their ROPS submission procedures to comply with DOF requirements. 13-91: Consider getting help from their State representatives or County resources in the ROPS submission and settlement process. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under 15 the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) 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
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F01:
Continued redevelopment in San Diego is desired and is important for the future growth and economic vitality of the City. Fact: The tax increment revenues used to fund redevelopment work in the past are no longer available. Fact: A stockpile of redevelopment projects exists, including many that are shovel- ready. Fact: There are potential sources of new revenue—some of which Civic San Diego is already pursuing—that Civic San Diego can try to tap into to implement these projects. Fact: There is strong competition for the funds available from these sources. Fact: Civic San Diego does not have sufficient staff with the specialized knowledge and experience necessary to compete successfully in applying for these new sources of funds. Fact: Civic San Diego does have former CCDC and SEDC personnel who have the skills and experience to establish the sophisticated public/private agreements necessary to utilize such new funds and complete redevelopment projects.
F02:
A vigorous effort will be required to identify new funding sources and compete successfully for the money to fund the many projects that are ready for development.
F03:
Because Civic San Diego lacks sufficient qualified staff, it does not have the capacity to compete successfully for funds from these new sources, but it is well positioned to utilize such funds effectively if they can be obtained. Fact: There are redevelopment agencies across the country. Many of these agencies do not use property tax revenues to fund their redevelopment work.
F04:
By examining RDAs outside of California, a new revenue model could be identified for Civic San Diego to replace the tax increment funds the State diverted. Fact: The total debt left behind by San Diego’s dissolved RDA is almost $2.4 billion! This debt is the consequence of a RDA that was extremely active and successful. Fact: In 1952, Proposition 18 was passed as an amendment to the State Constitution. It established “tax increment” property tax revenue to be used to fund the work of the redevelopment agencies statewide. This constitutional amendment specifically authorized redevelopment agencies to use future tax increment revenues as security for the issuance of bonds and other financial obligations, and for the payment of such obligations. Fact: San Diego’s RDA did in fact use the promise of future tax increment revenues for this purpose. Those who purchased bonds and signed agreements relied on this security. Fact: AB 26, the “Dissolution Act,” stated a clear intent that legitimate redevelopment debt be paid out of tax increment funds. Fact: The Governor and the Legislature took the current funds the RDAs had accumulated and redirected future tax increment revenues. The money is gone!
F05:
The Governor of California and the State Legislature have an ethical responsibility to assure that the items that legitimately comprise redevelopment debt are paid out of tax increment revenues. The provisions of Proposition 18 and AB 26 clearly establish this responsibility. 14
F06:
The citizenry of San Diego need to remain informed and alert to the actions of the State regarding redevelopment debt. The impact of these actions on the City of San Diego is of particular concern to its citizenry. A means must be found for the citizenry to communicate their concerns to Sacramento effectively.
F07:
The Mayor and City Council need a means of communicating to the Governor and the Legislature in an impactful manner the adverse consequences of the dissolution and the burden of redevelopment debt on the City of San Diego. Fact: On the authority of AB 26 and AB 1484, the State Department of Finance (DOF) has established a complex, multi-tiered approval process. Every six months Successor Agencies submit lists of individual debt obligations scheduled for payment—known as Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules (ROPS)—to the DOF for review and approval or rejection. Fact: Approval of the items on a ROPS is not guaranteed. They are subject to the approval of the Successor Agency’s Oversight Board and the DOF. Fact: Compiling a ROPS for submittal is a high volume, high dollar process. An individual ROPS can be more than 80 pages long and have a dollar value in excess of $200M! Firm deadlines and specific format requirements have been established by the DOF. A new ROPS is compiled and submitted every six months. The process is extremely time-consuming and potentially could continue for 40 years or more.
F08:
Despite the stated intent of AB 26 to pay the obligations out of tax increment funds, approval to pay the obligations is not automatic. Rather, it is subject to a multi-tiered approval process that has become contentious. This process creates uncertainty and difficulty for cities in planning budgets, and requires reserves far beyond the ordinary.
F09:
The ROPS process involves extensive lists of obligations that must be prepared and submitted in compliance with firm deadlines and formatting requirements established by the DOF. The complexity of the process creates the possibility of costly omissions and errors and the rejection of items for minor deficiencies.
F10:
Civic San Diego has insufficient personnel to focus on both the ROPS process and other important responsibilities assigned to the corporation. Preparing and submitting ROPS is not the only task consuming the time of employees. Responding to items the DOF has disputed and to audit requests and findings is also detracting from the ability of Civic San Diego employees to focus on the full range of their duties.
F11:
Because the ROPS approval process is likely to continue for 40 years or more, its time demands as well as the potential for costly errors and oversights cannot be ignored. These issues cannot be addressed effectively without additional qualified staff who can focus on ROPS preparation and submission. Fact: CCDC, with the help of consultants, prepared and published a Five-Year Work Plan Toward Goal of Ending Homelessness in Downtown San Diego. Fact: A critical element in that plan is the construction of sufficient supportive housing units to reduce homelessness. The plan utilizes an innovative formula that determines the net number of new units required by balancing the influx of new homeless persons with the number of persons no longer needing this assistance. Fact: The plan included collaborating and partnering with other groups who would provide services to those living in the supportive housing units. Fact: Funds to construct supportive housing as specified in the plan are no longer available to Civic San Diego or the City.
F12:
The Five-Year Work Plan held out a realistic hope of making substantial progress in reducing homelessness downtown.
F13:
The present state of homelessness in the City heavily detracts from the urban renewal progress San Diego has achieved.
F14:
A means must be found to continue the construction of supportive housing and keep the Five-Year Work Plan active. Fact: Information regarding the status and outcome of redevelopment projects virtually stopped with the dissolution of the City’s RDA. Updates on projects are no longer posted or published.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
the progress of redevelopment projects;
R2:
the implementation status of the major plans developed by CCDC;
R3:
the total current debt and assets of the Successor Agency and the Housing Successor Agency; and
F15:
Information regarding the status of legacy redevelopment projects, the ROPS process, and the other activities of Civic San Diego is difficult for the public to obtain, resulting in a lack of transparency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
the ROPS submitted and any items rejected or being disputed by the DOF. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury recommends that by December 31, 2013 the San Diego Mayor and City Council: 13-7: Establish a formal program of soliciting and evaluating a wide range of ideas and suggestions to make the continued revitalization of San Diego possible. The strong encouragement and unequivocal support of redevelopment efforts that have characterized past City administrations should be continued. 13-8: Make funds available for Civic San Diego to hire additional personnel who have specialized knowledge and experience in identifying new funding sources, applying for the funds available, and a track record of success in getting such funds awarded. 13-9: Adopt a new revenue model that will provide ongoing support for Civic San Diego to continue redevelopment. 13-10: Make funds available for Civic San Diego to hire an Administrative Analyst who will be assigned to the ROPS Processing Unit. This Analyst should be assigned responsibility for creating procedures that support the systematic collection of data regarding the obligations due for payment and the compilation of this data in each ROPS. 13-11: Vigorously pursue Federal and State contacts to find the means and ways to keep the Five-Year Work Plan Toward Goal of Eliminating Homelessness in Downtown San Diego active and adequately funded. 17 13-12: Establish as a major priority the construction of sufficient supportive housing units to meet the goal of the Five-Year Work Plan. Realistic annual goals should be specified and progress measured to keep this humanitarian crisis and blight upon our City in the forefront of our thinking and assure a sustained effort is made to achieve the five-year goal. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) 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
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F01:
California Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 (AB109) brought significant change to the sentencing, processing, and detention assignment for court- ordered incarceration of convicted felons.
F02:
An unintended consequence of AB109 implementation is that over time a lower number of State prison inmates will be eligible for assignment to fire camps as volunteer firefighters. Fact: Inmate firefighters are used for wildland fire prevention, fire suppression, fire control, and other important back country firefighting efforts. Fact: CALFire leadership has stated that inmate firefighters are especially critical within the wildland areas of San Diego County. Fact: California now operates 42 fire camps with four camps located in San Diego County. Fact: In 2011 there were 4,400 State prison inmates assigned to fire camps. Fact: The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that within the next several years the State prison population will include only 2,200 inmates who would qualify to volunteer for firefighting. Fact: As currently implemented, AB109 allows counties to either house low-risk inmates in their detention facilities or place them on probation.
F03:
If sufficient inmate firefighters cannot be drawn from the State prison population they could be drawn from eligible County inmate population.
F04:
Given the fire danger inherent in San Diego County wildlands, the fire camps within San Diego County should be kept open. Fact: County public safety leadership has the responsibility to incorporate the many changes in established processes and procedures brought by AB109. Fact: AB109 has only been in effect a year and implementation processes are still evolving. In addition, there are initiatives being considered to address several issues that are unclear or ill-defined relative to AB109 implementation. Fact: There are unresolved issues concerning the utilization of County inmates for firefighting assignment due to additional cost and loss of manpower for other duties. 6
F05:
There are clear and competing priorities for assignment of County inmates to fire camps over the next several years that must be thoughtfully resolved.
F06:
There is a compelling requirement that the services of trained inmate firefighters be ready and available, especially during the wildfire season. The valuable support provided by these inmate volunteers of essential firefighting services should be a top priority. Fact: CDCR is currently responsible for assignment of State inmates as well as providing detention housing, food, and housekeeping services necessary to maintain inmates at fire camps. Fact: Under current AB109 implementation guidance, the Sheriff must reimburse CDCR approximately $46 per inmate per day to house County inmates at fire camps. Fact: The Sheriff is responsible for providing medical services and associated transportation for County inmates. Fact: The current average cost of housing inmates in County detention facilities is approximately $160 per inmate per day, although firefighter-eligible inmates may often require less medical services and cost considerably less. Fact: Even if some County inmates are housed in fire camps, the Sheriff still has the high overhead to support continuing operation of County detention facilities.
F07:
The $46 per day per inmate cost for those inmates housed in fire camps will increase future operational budgets of County detention facilities.
F08:
There are additional costs incurred by the Sheriff in connection with providing of medical services and associated transportation for County inmates housed in fire camps.
F09:
A compelling argument can be made that the State should subsidize counties for the detainment costs of those County inmates assigned to fire camps including necessary medical support services.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F01:
SDUSD lacks effective investigative policies and procedures when adult-to- student bullying occurs and is reported.
F02:
Parents appear to lack a forum to address adult-to-child bullying complaints and do not receive timely feedback concerning the status of an appeal.
F03:
There is a conflict of interest when school officials review appeals to their own original findings and decisions.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
13-70:
Develop a policy to address adult-to-student bullying, harassment or
13-71:
Revise the adult-to-student bullying, harassment or intimidation
13-72:
Provide all complainants timely and continuing feedback as to the