Gran Jurado del Condado de San Francisco
2014-2015
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (7)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
Additional ambulance shifts, 2. Additional staffing, 3. Replace aging ambulance fleet, and 4. Cross-‐training of new uniformed employees (entry level firefighters).5 Cross trained firefighters are able to handle both fire suppression and emergency medical responses but few stations have firefighters who are cross-‐trained as paramedics. In our research, we were struck by the following: • In spite of the dynamic model, ambulances cluster around the hospitals, which are located in the Mission, Western Addition, Parnassus Heights and downtown areas; no such clustering exists in the outlying western neighborhoods (Battalions 7, 8, 9 and10). • For ambulances dynamically stationed in the western neighborhoods and requiring replenishment of supplies during their normal shift, an inordinate amount of time is consumed in traveling to and from Station 49 (located in the southeastern part of San Francisco at 1415 Evans Street). • Response times for ambulances to the outlying western neighborhoods suffer as fewer ambulances are available. (See the red sections of the map below) 5 Performance Audit, June 2014. San Francisco Fire Department 10 Percent of Code 3 Medical Calls where a Transport Unit Arrived on Scene that are Greater than 10 Minutes 48 0.452 0.27628 0.197 16 0.414 51 0.211 0.191 41 02 13 0.167 0.218 0.150 38 35 0.120 0.157 10 03 0.13001 0.26314 0.166 31 0.12905 0.319 34 0.160 21 0.10236 0.18608 0.12729 0.18 22 0.14712 0.12506 0.362 23 0.115 07 37 0.31120 0.1524 0.145 0.33018 0.143 11 0.289 40 0.16709 25 0.265 39 0.30726 0.244 0.261 32 42 0.266 15 0.224 0.405 19 0.291 17 0.32743 0.35844 0.311 33 Source: SFFD Time Period: April 28 2014 through April 27 2015 Challenges The primary reasons for failing to meet EMS response time standards are: EMS staffing and ambulance deployment, aging equipment, working conditions, population trends, and the absence of strategic planning.
F2:
Aging Equipment Another reason for slow response times is a chronic lack of serviceable ambulances. The ambulance fleet is aging; more than a few need to be permanently retired. As time is of the essence in responding to medical calls, dependable ambulances are a must. The useful life span for a SFFD ambulance is 10 years. In 2014 almost 50% of the fleet exceeded the 10-‐year life span. As of February 2014 the average mileage for 6 Performance Audit, pg. 14, June 2014. San Francisco Admin Code Section 2A.97. San Francisco Fire Department 12 these older ambulances was 158,299 and the average repair cost per vehicle over its lifetime could be as much as $162,554. (See Appendix 3: Rig Inventory). The Department does not track the number of ambulances out of service on a daily basis 8 but Department officials note that as many as one-‐third of the ambulance fleet may require servicing at any given time. 19 new ambulances were placed into service in spring 2015. However, the Department ambulance fleet of 54 vehicles requires regular replacement of aged equipment as well as upgrading technology on all SFFD vehicles. (See Appendix 6 Technology Needs).
F3:
Working Conditions The Civil Grand Jury observed less than optimum working conditions for paramedics at Station 49. Some key issues for this facility include: • More than 100 paramedics and other Department personnel use Station 49 on a daily basis. This facility was not originally designed for ambulance storage and does not adequately accommodate this number of people and equipment. For example, there are only three bathrooms, two for men and one for women. • Station 49 lacks essentials for the staff who work out of there. There is no water fountain, no kitchen or break room, unsafe street parking for employee vehicles, a deteriorating interior and exterior, and an inadequate security system. The Ambulance Working Group noted in its final report that Station 49 is to be replaced with a new, state of the art facility. Plans for this $40 million facility will be incorporated into the City’s upcoming 10 Year Capital Plan and into the anticipated 2016 Health Bond.
F4:
Population Trends Growth in the City’s population is one of the reasons for increased demand in emergency medical services. Between 2000 and 2013, the population of San Francisco grew by 7.8%. The Association of Bay Area Government projects the population of San Francisco will increase by another 35% in three decades.9 San Francisco also has a high daytime commuter population. According to the 2006-‐ 2010 American Community Survey, the resident population during that period averaged 798,172 but the daytime population during the same period was 951,627, which is 21% higher than the resident population.10 At the same time that the Bay Area population is growing, it is also growing older. In 2014, residents over 65 constituted 22% of the total City population, thus increasing the number of emergency medical calls from elderly residents. Ibid. 9 2014 Performance Audit of Emergency Medical Services Resources at the San Francisco Fire Department. June 2014, p.24. See www.onesanfrancisco.org. San Francisco Fire Department 13 The effects of rapid population growth are apparent to anyone who lives in, works in or visits San Francisco. Traffic is a growing problem along with available street parking. It takes longer to travel in many parts of the City, not just downtown. The City is growing vertically with the development of many high-‐rise offices and housing. Each of these issues affects the SFFD and their ability to respond in a timely manner to fire and medical emergencies. For example, ladders on SFFD fire trucks can only extend to the 6th story of a high rise. These problems will continue to intensify as more people occupy San Francisco.
F5:
Lack of Strategic Planning Strategic development is vital to SFFD in order for it to provide the City with a safety net. Without it, plans cannot be made to meet future needs created by changing demographics, catastrophic events, aging obsolete equipment, and staffing needs resulting from attrition. Population growth will impact SFFD’s ability to keep San Francisco safe. SFFD is remiss in not planning adequately to provide service in the event of a great natural disaster. It cannot ignore the reality that San Francisco is a City that sits near the San Andreas earthquake fault and has already suffered major natural disasters. Living in a time when a terrorist strike on San Francisco could be a reality rather than a movie, we asked SFFD personnel about the training they receive to respond to a disaster. Their responses indicated that such training is not provided, particularly for rank and file. Strategic planning would provide SFFD with necessary tools such as performance analysis, research, continuous quality improvement, risk management, and grant writing functions. Since at least 2002, the Budget and Legislative Analyst has recommended that the Department formally conduct strategic and organizational planning. The SF Fire Commission meets regularly with SFFD leadership to consider budget, personnel and other Department business. The Fire Commission should oversee the development and monitor the implementation of a strategic plan, including receiving regular performance reports from the Chief of Department with detailed action plans, including dates. San Francisco Fire Department 14 Findings F_1.1 SFFD continues to fail to meet EOA response time standards, resulting in lost revenue for the City. F_1.2 The current dynamic dispatch model fails to meet EMSA response times in the western neighborhoods of the City (Battalions 7, 8, 9 and 10) for several reasons, chief among them the long distance from Station 49 for re-‐stocking an ambulance during a working shift and the long distance from hospitals, where ambulances tend to congregate in the natural course of their duty. F_1.3 A number of firehouses are without paramedic-‐level service due to a shortage of firefighter/paramedics. The shortage is caused by insufficient cross training of personnel and insufficient training for paramedics. F_1.4 SFFD has reduced the mandatory minimum of four Rescue Captains to three, resulting in an increase in span of control from a recommended 10 ambulances per Rescue Captain to 20. F_1.5 SFFD has no formal strategic plan and is not creating such a plan in the near future; the Fire Commission seems a natural group to assist the Chief in this very important venture.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R49:
R_1.2.1 The Civil Grand Jury recommends the number of supply trips from Station 49 be reduced through implementation of a secure inventory reserve at some stations or by contracting with a medical supply company to restock supplies at fire houses. R_1.3 That by July 2017, the Chief schedule sufficient training so that all engines will have a paramedic on every crew. R_1.4 That the span of control for Rescue Captains be reduced in the next fiscal year, bringing the Department into compliance with Admin Code 2A.97. R_1.5 That by December 2015 the Chief, using funds allocated in the next budget year, contract with an experienced consultant to initiate a strategic plan covering: full funding for equipment renewal; facilities maintenance and updates; communication technology; and training for both normal operations and disasters. B. Treasure Island Training Facility
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
The City has not prioritized critical network infrastructure investments, as demonstrated by their failure to fund essential network improvements.
F2:
Significant problems still exist within DT that limit the services it provides to departments, largely due to their inability to fill job positions and funding constraints.
F3:
The planned reorganization of DT to designate a responsible party to each department could be a positive step in building DT’s credibility.
F4:
DT lacks business analyst capabilities to launch new initiatives and implement processes to make DT more efficient and effective.
F5:
The skills inventory capability of the eMerge PeopleSoft system, as currently configured, will not enable Department Heads to quickly identify City employees with skill sets in demand.
F6:
DHR’s efforts through the IT Hiring Group to stimulate IT recruitment and streamline IT hiring will not sufficiently impact departmental IT units and DT.
F7:
The absence of a way to quickly bring in technology resources, whether on an “at will” or CSS basis, puts the City at a great disadvantage in hiring and potentially at risk in all of its technology initiatives.
Recomendaciones adicionales
11
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Mayor should prioritize network infrastructure and fully fund the required investment in this foundational platform.
R2:
The Mayor and Board of Supervisors should require a six-month and twelve- month report on the status of the DT reorganization.
R3:
A user satisfaction survey should be sent to all DT clients, befor e the end of 2015 and later in six months after the reorganization, to assess whether the new accountability structure is making a difference for clients.
R4:
The Office of the Controller should develop the skills inventory capability in the eMerge PeopleSoft system to update IT employee skills by the end of FY15- 16.
R5:
DHR should publicly present the results of its pilot IT hiring process to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors before the end of CY2015.
R6:
DHR should issue a monthly written report to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors showing the number of open IT positions at the beginning of the month, the number of new IT positions requisitions received in the current month, the number of IT positions filled in the current month , the number of open IT positions at the end of the month, and the average number of days required to fill the IT positions closed in the current month.
R7:
DT should launch a taskforce to recommend options for recruiting and hiring IT staff, particularly on an “at will” basis.
R8:
The Mayor and Board of Supervisors should calendar an interim review of taskforce proposals within six months of its convening.
R9:
The Mayor and Board of Supervisors needs to allocate funds to DT for a recruiter dedicated exclusively to DT and other IT units’ staffing needs.
R10:
DT needs to hire business analyst talent for the taskforce, new reorganization, and new initiatives. Response Matrix
R16:
R5. DHR should publicly present the results of its pilot IT hiring process to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors before the end of CY2015. R6. DHR should issue a monthly written report to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors showing the number of open IT positions at the beginning of the month, the number of new IT positions requisitions received in the current month, the number of IT positions filled in the current month , the number of open IT positions at the end of the month, and the average number of days required to fill the IT positions closed in the current month. R7. DT should launch a taskforce to recommend options for recruiting and hiring IT staff, particularly on an “at will” basis. R8. The Mayor and Board of Supervisors should calendar an interim review of taskforce proposals within six months of its convening. R9. The Mayor and Board of Supervisors needs to allocate funds to DT for a recruiter dedicated exclusively to DT and other IT units’ staffing needs. R10. DT needs to hire business analyst talent for the taskforce, new reorganization, and new initiatives. Response Matrix
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
CleanPowerSF will be a relatively small, low-risk program at startup, but must grow quickly to meet the City’s timeline for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
That CleanPowerSF be designed, first and foremost, to be financially viable and to grow quickly without undue risk.
F2:
CleanPowerS F’s rates will be lower and more affordable to all San Franciscans, if it is free to use unbundled RECs as needed, and to provide less than 100% green power.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
That CleanPowerSF be free to use unbundled RECs, and to provide less than 100% green power, as needed to meet its goals of financial viability and early expansion.
F3:
Local job creation, while desirable, is not the chief purpose of CleanPowerSF, and should not cause further delay in implementing the program.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
That CleanPowerSF be designed to provide as many local jobs as it can, without compromising its financial viability and potential for early expansion.
F4:
There are ample affordable resources of renewable power to support CleanPowerSF, including local rooftop solar installations such as those funded through the GoSolarSF program.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
That SFPUC integrate the GoSolarSF program into CleanPowerSF to take advantage of their complementary relationship.
F5:
Political discord has aRt teimceos mdemlayeedn idmaplteimoennsta tion of CleanPowerSF. Based on the foregoing findings, we make the following recommendations:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
That local officials, including the Mayor, put the full weight of their offices behind the success of the Cle anPowerSF program. 20
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
12 hallazgos
F1:
The City does not have a citywide comprehensive plan that addresses the rising sea level issue. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep partially disagrees 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R1a:
implemented but is underway
R1b:
The City should adopt a citywide comprehensive plan for adaptation to DPW
R1c:
Board of Supervisors
R1d:
Board of Supervisors
F2:
Planning Department The City’s Planning Code has no provisions addressing the impacts associated with rising sea levels. Without appropriate provisions within the City’s Planning Code, there are no effective means to insure sustainable development on land vulnerable to rising sea levels. Disagree in part The City agrees with the statements that the Planning Code does not include provisions addressing impacts associated with sea level rise. However, the Planning Department evaluates whether proposed projects would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to flooding as a result of future sea level rise as part of the environmental review process required under CEQA. CEQA provides the City with an effective means to ensure that development in areas vulnerable to sea level rise is designed to address related flood hazards. As such, we disagree with the conclusion that without provisions in the Planning Code addressing sea level ride there are no effective means to insure sustainable development on land vulnerable to rising sea levels. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2a:
Board of Supervisors
R2b:
The Planning Code should be amended to discourage permanent
F3:
The City’s Building Code DBI and the Port’s Building Code have no provisions Planning Department addressing the impacts associated with rising sea Port of SF levels. Without appropriate provisions within the city’s Building Code and the Port’s Building Code, there are no effective means to control construction methods that would insure a project’s resistance to the impacts of rising sea levels. Disagree in part The City agrees with the statements that the City's Building Code and the Port's Building Code do not include provisions addressing impacts associated with sea level rise. However, the Planning Department evaluates whether proposed projects would expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death due to flooding as a result of sea level rise as part of the environmental review process required under CEQA. CEQA provides the City with an effective means to ensure that development in areas vulnerable to sea level rise is designed to address related flood hazards. As such, we disagree with the conclusion that without provisions in the City's and Port's Building Codes addressing sea level rise there are no effective means to insure sustainable development on land vulnerable to rising sea levels. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Board of Supervisors
F4:
BCDC has the final say on any permit within its jurisdiction. Disagree in part BCDC does not have the final say on any permit within its jurisdiction. BCDC has jurisdiction over the land lying between the Mean High Water Line of the Bay shoreline and a line drawn parallel to and 100 feet from the Bay shoreline. BCDC permits the following activities within its jurisdiction: 1) Placement of solid material, building or repairing docks, pile-supported or cantilevered structure, disposing of material or mooring of a vessel for a long period in SF Bay or in certain tributaries that floe onto the Bay; 2) Dredging or extracting material from the Bay bottom; Substantially changing the use of any structure or area; 4) Constructing, remodeling or repairing a structure; or 5) Subdividing property or grading land. RISING SEAS FINDINGS AND RESPONSES Mayor Planning Department Port of SF Agree The City has a draft comprehensive plan for addressing sea level rise for City assets. At the direction of the Mayor in the summer of 2013, a Sea Level Rise (SLR) Committee made up of representatives from seven City departments and two consulting firms, (Moffatt & Nichol and AECOM) produced draft "Guidance for Incorporating Sea Level Rise Into Capital Planning in SF: Assessing Vulnerability, Task and Adaptation." This draft Guidance was presented to the City Administrator, Department heads, and the Capital Planning Committee on May 12 and is currently undergoing review by City agencies. The draft Guidance includes finding on the state of the science, expected and possible sea level rise through 2100, and assessment of storm surge and wave action effecting water levels. It further provides a comprehensive approach for department to follow to ensure City assets and capital improvement programs are resilient to the anticipated effects of sea level rise. The City formed in 2013 a Sea Level Rise Committee which addressed sea level rise. A draft plan was presented to the City Administrator, department heads and the Capital Planning Committee in May 2014 and is currently going through review by City agencies. CGJ Year Report Title 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep RISING SEAS FINDINGS AND RESPONSES Finding Response Required 2014 Responses (agree/disagree) 2014 Response Text NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The City should consult with BCDC at the onset of development plans
F5:
Mayor or Mayor’s A comprehensive risk assessment of Ocean Designated Agency Beach, with mitigation
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The City should consider implementation of recommendations that are
F6:
SFPUC A number of measures can be taken now by the Public Utilities Commission to minimize the impact of sea level rise, especially when combined with future king tides and sudden surges. Agree Agree NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED.
F7:
SFPUC Salt water backflows have already infiltrated the City’s wastewater treatment plants, both in the Bayside and Oceanside plants. Salt water kills organisms in the system that clean wastewater. Salt water also damages wastewater treatment equipment. As a result of sea level rise, bay and ocean saltwater backflow into the wastewater treatment systems will dramatically increase, causing serious problems for the wastewater treatment processes.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
As an interim measure, the City should retrofit outfalls in the
F8:
SFPUC The Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant, built in 1952, is aging and needs restoration. Agree NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED. Agree NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
The Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant should be retrofitted to
F9:
SFO The San Francisco airport (SFO) is located slightly above sea level and therefore vulnerable to flooding from heavy rainfall, king tides, and rising sea levels. A number of measures can be taken now by SFO to minimize the impact of sea level rise, especially when combined with future king tides and sudden surges. Disagree in part SFO agrees that this is minimally vulnerable to flooding from future heavy rainfall and king tides. Currently, the Airport has a system of seawalls which protects Airport property from daily tidal fluctuations, including the highest tides of the year called King Tides; and seawalls also protect the property against regular storm events. There are some known minor deficiencies in the seawall system that we are addressing which could pose some risk during extreme storm events. In addition to the seawalls, the Airport has an internal drainage and pump station system to evacuate any rain or ground water which accumulates on the Airfield. The entire airfield operation system of runways, taxiways, lighting system and navigational aids is constructed with the understanding of operations occurring outdoors during inclement and wet weather. Therefore, SFO is not unduly vulnerable to today's heavy rainfalls and king tides. SFO is currently taking measures to review and develop a plan to mitigate any outstanding deficiencies in the seawall system related to long-term sea level rise. Agree CGJ Year Report Title 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep RISING SEAS FINDINGS AND RESPONSES Finding Response Required 2014 Responses (agree/disagree) 2014 Response Text NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R9a:
SFO should increase the height of its existing seawalls along its
R9b:
SFO should continue to improve measures to eliminate standing water
F10:
Port of SF The Port of San Francisco is built on landfill, and its seawall lies beneath many buildings along the bay. Many piers are in poor condition. A number of measures can be taken now by the Port to minimize the impact of sea level rise, especially when combined with future king tides and sudden surges.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10-15:
years in duration, including upgrading of drainage pump stations to handle larger storm events and building seawalls with robust foundations that will allow future extensions to accommodate additional sea level rise. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R9b: SFO Recommendation will not be SFO does not have an ongoing problem with standing water in our taxiways or runways. Occasionally, we have had temporary small SFO should continue to improve measures to eliminate standing water implemented because it is not warranted pockets of standing water on our in-field or turf areas, but it only takes a short time for the pump station to catch up with the rainfall and on its runways to ensure they remain sufficiently above sea level. drain these locations. Over the last ten years, SFO has spent $26.4 million on pump station and storm drainage improvements, including $18.8 million spent on our on-going Runway Safety Area program. As part of our on-going capital improvement plan, SFO is planning on investing $22 million in storm drainage and pump station improvements over the next 5 years. SFO believes the combination of upgrading our storm drain pump stations and fortifying the perimeter seawalls is the best way to protect the runways from sea level rise. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R9c: SFO Recommendation is being implemented SFO engineers are analyzing the best ways to protect the north field area, including the wastewater treatment plant and other infrastructure, The northern section of SFO should be analyzed by airport engineers as part of the feasibility study mentioned above. to determine how best to protect its wastewater treatment plant and other infrastructure in that section from sea level rise. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R10a: Port of SF Recommendation is being implemented The Port is currently scoping the level of effort for earthquake retrofit and flood protection improvements to the SF seawall. It is anticipated The Port should begin planning and creating a timeline for construction between 2014 and 2017 an earthquake vulnerability assessment as well as retrofit design concepts will be developed and funding secured. of flood control barriers in the low spots along the edges of the Between 2017 and 2030, individual sections of the retrofit will be designed and constructed. piers to prevent waterfront flooding associated with sea level rise. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R10b: Port of SF Recommendation will not be The Port is currently seeking alternate funding sources from federal and state grant programs as well as including considerations of sea To assist with the cost of protective measures to address sea level rise, implemented because it is not warranted level rise in projects identified in the capital planning process. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is evaluating the SF seawall to determine the Port Commission should establish a reserve fund as part of its if there is a federal interest in retrofitting the seawall, which could leas to federal matching funds through the federal Water Resources leasing policy whereby a surcharge is assessed as part of the rent or Development Act. By resolution 0125-13, the BOS adopted "Guidelines for the Establishment and use of an Infrastructure Financing District as a separate line item in with Project Areas on Land under the Jurisdiction of San Francisco Port Commission" which state: "Any portion of the City's share of tax each lease. increment that the City allocated to the waterfront district from the project area but that is not required to fund eligible project-specific public facilities will be re-allocated tot he City's General Fund or to improvements to the City's seawall and other measures to protect the City against sea level rise or other foreseeable risks to the City's waterfront." IFD law generally authorizes certain classes of public facilities to be finances through IFDs. The Legislature has broadened the types of authorized public facilities for waterfront districts to include 1)structural repairs and improvements to piers, seawalls, and wharves, and installations of piles 2) shoreline restoration, and 3) improvements which may be publically owned, to protect against seal level rise. The Port is in the process of planning and implementing IFDs on Port property at Seawall Lot 337 in Mission Bay and Pier 70, and will likely pursue legislative authorization to form OFDs in other areas of the waterfront 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R11a: Mayor Recommendation will not be A reserve fund for sea level rise adaptation is unnecessary since the Mayor and the BOS allocate capital funds on an annual basis. If The City should start a reserve fund for adaptation for rising sea levels, City Administrator implemented because it is not warranted policymakers did want to set aside funds, a reserve fund is not the only way of reserving City resources. Depending on the policy objective, a portion of which could be obtained from a surcharge on Controller a project, baseline, or Charter requirement could be more appropriate. However, any creation of a new reserve would need to be balanced development planned for areas vulnerable to said eventuality. against the loss of allocation flexibility for both the Mayor and the BOS. Based on the language of the recommendation, it is assumed that the Jury is asking for a surcharge on all development, public or private. It should be noted the Sea Level Rose Committee is in the process of creating guidelines for public development. A surcharge on private development has not been analyzed. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R11a: Board of Supervisors will not be implemented A reserve fund for sea level rise adaptation is unnecessary since the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors allocate capital funds on an The City should start a reserve fund for adaptation for rising sea levels, annual basis, and the City’s 10-year Capital Plan can incorporate efforts to address sea level rise through its annual budgeting process. a portion of which could be obtained from a surcharge on development planned for areas vulnerable to said eventuality. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R11b: Mayor Recommendation has been partially As part of the 2014 San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City identified both natural and human-made hazards facing the City. The The City should assess costs of both implementation of adaptation City Administrator implemented document formulated a plan to reduce losses from those hazards and established a process for implementing the plan. strategies and potential losses from failing to do so. Controller However, the 2014 HMP is not a comprehensive sea level rise plan, nor was it intended to be. It should be noted that the 2014 HMP includes the cost of several mitigation strategies either directly or closely related to sea level rise. The following are all high-priority mitigation actions that the City intends to implement during the five-year lifespan of the 2014 HMP, assuming funding availability • Implement Phase I of the SFPUC's Sewer System Improvement Program (SSIP), including storm water management, flood control, and green infrastructure projects. Funding source: bond financing: $75,000,000 approved over the next five years. • Continue the Great Highway Long-Term Stabilization program to respond to continuing beach erosion impacts along the Great Highway at Ocean Beach south of Sloat Boulevard. Estimated project timeframe: 4-5 years. Potential funding source: SFMTA and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Estimated cost: $3,000,000 - $5,000,000. • Upgrade segments of the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) shoreline protection system. Address gaps in the system that could allow the entry of floodwater; and address openings for storm water drainage that do not have closure devices, which could allow the entry of floodwaters. Upgrade seawalls to address sea level rise. Estimated project timeframe: 5 years. Potential funding source: Capit.'ll Planning/Federal Government. Estimated cost: $60,000,000. • Upgrade storm drainage outfall pump stations lA, lB, and lC to protect the SFO airfield from lOO- year floods and sea level rise. Estimated project timeframe: 1-2 years. Potential funding source: TBD. Estimated cost: $3,500,000. The 2014 HMP does include a brief hazard profile for sea level rise as part of the HMP's climate change section, but does not contain an analysis of the city's vulnerability to sea level rise. This is because the 2014 HMP was completed before the Sea Level Rise Committee chose sea level rise maps for the City and agreed on the level of sea level rise they believe will impact the City. Future versions of the HMP will incorporate the more recent work of the Sea Level Rise Committee by updating the sea level rise hazard profile and by including a vulnerability analysis for sea level rise. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R11b: Board of Supervisors has been implemented The City identified both natural and man hazards facing the City as part of the 2014 San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan; future versions The City should assess costs of both implementation of adaptation of the Hazard Mitigation Plan will incorporate the more recent work of the Sea Level Rise Committee by updating the sea level rise hazard strategies and potential losses from failing to do so. profile and by including a vulnerability analysis for sea level rise. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R11c: Mayor Recommendation has been The City has taken the necessary steps to qualify for an receive federal funding. Having FEMA approved HMP makes SF eligible for federal The City should explore applying for grants offered by Congress’ Pre- City Administrator implemented hazard and flood mitigation grant funding before and after a Presidentially-declared disaster. Additionally, the Port has explored various Disaster Mitigation Program. Receipt of grants is based upon risk Controller opportunities with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In December, 2012, the Port asked the USACE to conduct a study under the assessments that indicate that potential savings exceed the cost of River of Harbor Act to determine feasibility of federally-assisted improvements to the SF seawall as a storm and flood protection structure. implementation. The City should explore available matching In May 2014, the Corps kicked off a Federal Interest Determination for a project under the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) Section funds from the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal sources. Shoreline Protection. This funding source is for smaller projects that result in implementation, not study. The federal spending limit is $3 million and the cost share is 65% Federal and 35% local. In 2010, the Port asked USACE for seawall assistance through the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) for maintenance and repair, liquefaction hazard mitigation, and flood protection. While the request has yet to find any success, the Port continues to actively pursue this funding option. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R11c: Board of Supervisors has been implemented While this recommendation does not fall directly under the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors, the City and its various agencies have The City should explore applying for grants offered by Congress’ Pre- taken the necessary steps to qualify for and receive federal funding. Although some efforts have yet to find success, City departments will Disaster Mitigation Program. Receipt of grants is based upon risk continue to actively pursue these and other funding options assessments that indicate that potential savings exceed the cost of implementation. The City should explore available matching funds from the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal sources. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R11d: Mayor Recommendation will be implemented in Staff is currently pursuing all available opportunities to work with FEMA on sea level rise mitigation measures. A FEMA sea level rise The City should request an insurance premium estimate from FEMA City Administrator the future workshop specifically for the City and County of San Francisco will be conducted this September. and then compare that estimate with the funding it could acquire from Controller FEMA for mitigation and adaptation against future flooding. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R11d: Board of Supervisors will not be implemented FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) does not offer flood coverage to municipalities; only to private property owners in The City should request an insurance premium estimate from FEMA jurisdictions that participate in the program and then compare that estimate with the funding it could acquire from FEMA for mitigation and adaptation against future flooding. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R12a: Mayor Recommendation has been partially The City's Sea Level Rise Committee reached out to a number of other jurisdictions, including those in the bay Area, to assess SLR The City, through its Mayor and Board of Supervisors, should Planning Department implemented strategies being pursued in other locations. Committee members are presenting the City's draft Guidance in a number of regional forums coordinate its efforts with other cities and organizations in the bay area and are exploring regional cooperation and collaboration opportunities. SFO in particular has focused on developing regional collaboration by establishing a regional working group to address the impact of rising and SFO has reached out to stakeholders and neighboring communities to begin a dialog on adaption strategies. SFO jointly applied with sea levels. San Mateo County for a climate ready grant from the State Coastal Conservancy and successfully won the grant to extend its current feasibility study to include San Bruno and Colma Creeks which empty into the bay immediately north of SFO. A working group including stakeholders from SFO, San Mateo County, BCDC, California State Coastal Conservancy, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Caltrans and SamTrans will begin meeting in August 2014 to address impacts of sea levels on the peninsula. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R12a: Board of Supervisors has been implemented The City's Sea Level Rise Committee reached out to a number of other jurisdictions to assess sea level rise strategies being pursued in The City, through its Mayor and Board of Supervisors, should other locations; and a working group including the Airport, San Mateo County, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, California coordinate its efforts with other cities and organizations in the bay area Coastal Conservancy, and other stakeholders began meeting in August 2014 to address impacts of sea levels on the peninsula and will by establishing a regional working group to address the impact of rising continue to do so. sea levels. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R12b: Mayor Requires further analysis We agree that community and stakeholder involvement in the process of adapting to sea level rise is essential. City agencies to date have The City should create a local working group of community citizens and Planning Department spent the bulk of their time focused on technical issues such as what we know about sea level rise science, the state of the art in planning stakeholders to feed into the regional group. infrastructure resilience, and other technical subjects. As we get up to speed, we will turn our attention to greater involvement from communities, the private sector, and stakeholders as adaptation planning moving forward. The exact nature of the outreach and involvement has not yet been determined. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep R12b: Board of Supervisors will be implemented in the future The proposed work program for developing a comprehensive citywide sea level rise adaptation plan would provide for robust outreach to The City should create a local working group of community citizens and and collaboration with local and regional community members and stakeholders. stakeholders to feed into the regional group. 2014 Responses CGJ Year Report Title Finding Response Required (agree/disagree) 2014 Response Text 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 1: Mayor Agree The City has a draft comprehensive plan for addressing sea level rise for City assets. At the direction of the The City does not have a citywide comprehensive DPW Mayor in the summer of 2013, a Sea Level Rise (SLR) Committee made up of representatives from seven City plan that addresses the Dept. of Environment departments and two consulting firms, (Moffatt & Nichol and AECOM) produced draft "Guidance for rising sea level issue. Dept. of Emergency Incorporating Sea Level Rise Into Capital Planning in SF: Assessing Vulnerability, Task and Adaptation." This Management draft Guidance was presented to the City Administrator, Department heads, and the Capital Planning Planning Department Committee on May 12 and is currently undergoing review by City agencies. The draft Guidance includes Port of SF finding on the state of the science, expected and possible sea level rise through 2100, and assessment of SFPUC storm surge and wave action effecting water levels. It further provides a comprehensive approach for department to follow to ensure City assets and capital improvement programs are resilient to the anticipated effects of sea level rise. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 1: Board of Supervisors partially disagrees The City formed in 2013 a Sea Level Rise Committee which addressed sea level rise. A draft plan was The City does not have a citywide comprehensive presented to the City Administrator, department heads and the Capital Planning Committee in May 2014 and is plan that addresses the currently going through review by City agencies. rising sea level issue. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 2: Planning Department Disagree in part The City agrees with the statements that the Planning Code does not include provisions addressing impacts The City’s Planning Code has no provisions associated with sea level rise. However, the Planning Department evaluates whether proposed projects would addressing the impacts associated with rising sea expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to flooding as a result of future sea levels. Without appropriate provisions within the level rise as part of the environmental review process required under CEQA. CEQA provides the City with an City’s Planning Code, there are no effective effective means to ensure that development in areas vulnerable to sea level rise is designed to address means to insure sustainable development on land related flood hazards. As such, we disagree with the conclusion that without provisions in the Planning Code vulnerable to rising sea levels. addressing sea level ride there are no effective means to insure sustainable development on land vulnerable to rising sea levels. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 3: The City’s Building Code DBI Disagree in part The City agrees with the statements that the City's Building Code and the Port's Building Code do not include and the Port’s Building Code have no provisions Planning Department provisions addressing impacts associated with sea level rise. However, the Planning Department evaluates addressing the impacts associated with rising sea Port of SF whether proposed projects would expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death due to levels. Without appropriate provisions within the flooding as a result of sea level rise as part of the environmental review process required under CEQA. CEQA city’s Building Code and the Port’s Building Code, provides the City with an effective means to ensure that development in areas vulnerable to sea level rise is there are no effective means to control designed to address related flood hazards. As such, we disagree with the conclusion that without provisions in construction methods that would insure a project’s the City's and Port's Building Codes addressing sea level rise there are no effective means to insure resistance to the impacts of rising sea levels. sustainable development on land vulnerable to rising sea levels. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 3: The City’s Building Code Board of Supervisors partially disagrees While the Board of Supervisors does not have jurisdiction, the Board agrees that the City’s Building Code and and the Port’s Building Code have no provisions the Port’s Building Code do not include provisions addressing impacts associated with sea level rise, the addressing the impacts associated with rising sea Planning Department does evaluate whether proposed projects would expose people or structures to a levels. Without appropriate provisions within the significant risk of loss, injury or death due to flooding as a result of future sea level rise as part of the city’s Building Code and the Port’s Building Code, environmental review process required under CEQA. there are no effective means to control construction methods that would insure a project’s resistance to the impacts of rising sea levels. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 4: Mayor Disagree in part BCDC does not have the final say on any permit within its jurisdiction. BCDC has jurisdiction over the land BCDC has the final say on any permit within its Planning Department lying between the Mean High Water Line of the Bay shoreline and a line drawn parallel to and 100 feet from jurisdiction. Port of SF the Bay shoreline. BCDC permits the following activities within its jurisdiction: 1) Placement of solid material, building or repairing docks, pile-supported or cantilevered structure, disposing of material or mooring of a vessel for a long period in SF Bay or in certain tributaries that floe onto the Bay; 2) Dredging or extracting material from the Bay bottom; Substantially changing the use of any structure or area; 4) Constructing, remodeling or repairing a structure; or 5) Subdividing property or grading land. RISING SEAS FINDINGS AND RESPONSES 2014 Responses CGJ Year Report Title Finding Response Required (agree/disagree) 2014 Response Text 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 5: Mayor or Mayor’s Agree NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED. A comprehensive risk assessment of Ocean Designated Agency Beach, with mitigation recommendations made to the City regarding rising sea levels, was completed by SPUR, with City, State of California and U.S Corps of Engineers involvement, resulting in the Ocean Beach Master Plan, dated May, 2012 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 5: Board of Supervisors Agree A comprehensive risk assessment of Ocean Beach, with mitigation recommendations made to the City regarding rising sea levels, was completed by SPUR, with City, State of California and U.S Corps of Engineers involvement, resulting in the Ocean Beach Master Plan, dated May, 2012 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 6: SFPUC Agree NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED. A number of measures can be taken now by the Public Utilities Commission to minimize the impact of sea level rise, especially when combined with future king tides and sudden surges. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 7: SFPUC Agree NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED. Salt water backflows have already infiltrated the City’s wastewater treatment plants, both in the Bayside and Oceanside plants. Salt water kills organisms in the system that clean wastewater. Salt water also damages wastewater treatment equipment. As a result of sea level rise, bay and ocean saltwater backflow into the wastewater treatment systems will dramatically increase, causing serious problems for the wastewater treatment processes. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 8: SFPUC Agree NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED. The Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant, built in 1952, is aging and needs restoration. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 9: SFO Disagree in part SFO agrees that this is minimally vulnerable to flooding from future heavy rainfall and king tides. Currently, the The San Francisco airport (SFO) is located slightly Airport has a system of seawalls which protects Airport property from daily tidal fluctuations, including the above sea level and therefore vulnerable to highest tides of the year called King Tides; and seawalls also protect the property against regular storm flooding from heavy rainfall, king tides, and rising events. There are some known minor deficiencies in the seawall system that we are addressing which could sea levels. A number of measures can be taken pose some risk during extreme storm events. In addition to the seawalls, the Airport has an internal drainage now by SFO to minimize the impact of sea level and pump station system to evacuate any rain or ground water which accumulates on the Airfield. The entire rise, especially when combined with future king airfield operation system of runways, taxiways, lighting system and navigational aids is constructed with the tides and sudden surges. understanding of operations occurring outdoors during inclement and wet weather. Therefore, SFO is not unduly vulnerable to today's heavy rainfalls and king tides. SFO is currently taking measures to review and develop a plan to mitigate any outstanding deficiencies in the seawall system related to long-term sea level rise. RISING SEAS FINDINGS AND RESPONSES 2014 Responses CGJ Year Report Title Finding Response Required (agree/disagree) 2014 Response Text 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 10: Port of SF Agree NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED. The Port of San Francisco is built on landfill, and its seawall lies beneath many buildings along the bay. Many piers are in poor condition. A number of measures can be taken now by the Port to minimize the impact of sea level rise, especially when combined with future king tides and sudden surges. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 11: Mayor Agree While the City has not specifically set aside funds for the cost of adaptation to sea level rise, that does not The City has not set aside funds for the cost of City Administrator restrict the ability of the City to spend funds in the future. On an annual basis, the Mayor and the BOS have adaptation to sea level rise. Controller the ability to allocate funds towards sea level rise if they wish to do so. It should be noted that the City has been very strategic in planning and funding capital improvement projects. The Capital Planning Program regularly develops a ten-year capital expenditure plan for city-owned facilities and infrastructure and the draft Guidance referred to above will address SLR in the development of this Capital Plan, The Capital Plan allows the City to tale a long-range view of all needed infrastructure improvements and prioritize funding for the most critical projects. The Mayor and the BOS allocate funding for the City's capital plan on an annual basis. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 11: Board of Supervisors Agree While the Board of Supervisors have not specifically set aside funds for addressing adaptation to sea level The City has not set aside funds for the cost of rise, it is being addressed through the draft comprehensive plan that will be addressed when working with the adaptation to sea level rise. Capitol Planning Committee on future budget allocations on an annual basis 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 12: Mayor Agree NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED. Rising sea levels is a regional problem. What Planning Department one community does to protect its shorelines may have a negative impact on a neighboring community. This has been successfully accomplished by four counties on the east coast of Florida, as an example. 2013-14 Rising Sea Levels...At Our Doorstep Finding 12: Board of Supervisors Agree Rising sea levels is a regional problem. What one community does to protect its shorelines may have a negative impact on a neighboring community. This has been successfully accomplished by four counties on the east coast of Florida, as an example. RISING SEAS FINDINGS AND RESPONSES
F11:
Mayor The City has not set aside funds for the cost of City Administrator adaptation to sea level rise. Controller Agree Agree While the City has not specifically set aside funds for the cost of adaptation to sea level rise, that does not restrict the ability of the City to spend funds in the future. On an annual basis, the Mayor and the BOS have the ability to allocate funds towards sea level rise if they wish to do so. It should be noted that the City has been very strategic in planning and funding capital improvement projects. The Capital Planning Program regularly develops a ten-year capital expenditure plan for city-owned facilities and infrastructure and the draft Guidance referred to above will address SLR in the development of this Capital Plan, The Capital Plan allows the City to tale a long-range view of all needed infrastructure improvements and prioritize funding for the most critical projects. The Mayor and the BOS allocate funding for the City's capital plan on an annual basis.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R11a:
The City should start a reserve fund for adaptation for rising sea levels, City Administrator
R11b:
The City should assess costs of both implementation of adaptation
R11c:
The City should explore applying for grants offered by Congress’ PreDisaster Mitigation Program. Receipt of grants is based upon risk
R11d:
The City should request an insurance premium estimate from FEMA
F12:
Rising sea levels is a regional problem. What one community does to protect its shorelines may have a negative impact on a neighboring community. This has been successfully accomplished by four counties on the east coast of Florida, as an example.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R12a:
Board of Supervisors
R12b:
The City should create a local working group of community citizens and Planning Department
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
The WPO does not fully “protect” City officers and employees from retaliation for filing a complaint as required by the Charter mandate of Proposition C, because it covers only a limited range of complaints, it provides no effective remedy for the victim, and its secrecy provisions limit its deterrent effect.
F2:
The WPO also fails to fulfill the Charter mandate, in that it does not cover all whistleblower disclosures specified in the Charter
F3:
2: Whistleblower protection laws that cover government employees at the state and Federal level can serve as a useful model for improving the WPO.
F4:
The WPO creates an unwarranted obstacle to administrative complaints of retaliation filed with the Ethics Commission, by imposing a burden of proof on the complainant during preliminary review and investigation of such complaints.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
1: That the Ethics Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors an amendment to the WPO that provides real protection for whistleblowers, in conformity with the Charter mandate of Proposition C.
R2:
1: That amendments to the WPO expand the definition of whistleblowing to cover oral complaints to the complainant’s department; disclosures to a City department or commission other than the complainant’s own; and providing information to any of the recipients listed in the Charter mandate (hereafter “listed recipients”), outside of the formal complaint or investigation process.
R3:
That amendments to the WPO provide a meaningful remedy for the effects of retaliation, by authorizing the Ethics Commission to order cancellation of a retaliatory job action, and increasing the limit of the civil penalty available under the WPO to an amount adequate to repay the financial losses that can result from such an action.
R4:
That amendments to the WPO include a revision of Subsection 4.115(b)(iii) providing that the burden of proof set forth therein does not apply during preliminary review and investigation of administrative complaints to the C ommission.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
The Office of Assessor-Recorder has made progress in clearing up the b acklog, and as of February 2015, only 39 properties had exceeded the four-year statute of limitations. Nevertheless, a severe backlog problem remains.
F2:
The lag in issuing assessments delays the receipt of tax revenue, leads to a loss in interest earnings on property tax revenue, and puts a burden on taxpayers who “are entitled to timely notification of assessments.” (2013 BOE Survey) 14 Continuity Report on the OAR
F3:
The funding from SCAPP and the matching monies from the City and County provide an opportunity to eliminate the Office of Assessor-Recorder backlog and raise their BOE rating.
F4:
The funding from SCAPP is limited in time and does not cover other OAR personnel needs, including key administrative positions that can keep the backlog reduction momentum going.
F5:
OAR does not have a written staffing analysis and plan to reduce the remaining backlog of unassessed properties.
F6:
There is still a need to communicate with the Department of Building Inspection about OAR needs in terms of the flow of information between the two departments, which has the potential for greater efficiencies for the OAR.
F7:
There is a disconnect between the OAR Annual Report and the
Recomendaciones adicionales
14
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Office of Assessor-Recorder should raise the bar by meeting the state requirement and clear the backlog by the end of FY16-17.
R2:
The Office of Assessor-Reco rder needs to conduct a written staffing analysis and generate an aggressive long-term plan to maintain a backlog-free OAR before the end of CY2015.
R3:
The City and County needs to provide General Fund money (from the expected increase in revenue from property taxes due to a more productive OAR) in the FY15-16 budget to support new funding for key administrative positions and on-going funding for OAR positions after the expiration of the three-year grant.
R4:
The Of fice of Assessor-Recorder should regularly meet with staff from DBI to transfer data more efficiently between the departments before the end of CY15.
R5:
The 2015 and on-going OAR Annual Reports need to be written in a more explicit, consumer-friendly, jargon-free fashion, highlighting and clearly defining any efforts made in reducing the backlog, discussing the financia l implications for not doing so, and addressing any progress made, or obstacles encountered, in fulfilling the recommendations for office improvements. Continuity Report on the OAR Response Matrix
R6:
Improve the administration of the exemptions program by (1) properly applying the late-filing provisions of sections 270 and 271 when applicable, and (2) maintaining complete files on all exemption claims.
R7:
Improve the LEOP program by timely reassessing all properties owned by a legal entity undergoing a change in control or ownership.
R8:
Improve the new construction program by: (1) eliminating the backlog of assessable new construction, (2) expanding appraisal record documentation, (3) enrolling construction in progress at its fair market value for each lien date, and (4) valuing completed new construction at its fair market value.
R9:
Develop a comprehensive appraisal program for review of properties that experience a decline in value.
R10:
Improve the taxable possessory interest program by: (1) discovering and enrolling all taxable possessory interests, (2) documenting and tracking all taxable possessory interest assessments, (3) periodically reviewing all taxable possessory interests with stated terms of possession for declines in value, (4) reappraising taxable possessory interests in compliance with section 61, (5) assessing only private uses on publicly-owned real property in accordance with Rule 20, and (6) properly issuing supplemental assessments. Continuity Report on the OAR
R11:
Improve the leasehold improvement program by: (1) properly valuing structural improvements reported on the BPS, and (2) issuing supplemental assessments for structural leasehold improvements on the unsecured roll.
R12:
Modify the audit production report to better track the pool of largest audit accounts as defined by Rule 192.
R13:
Improve the business equipment valuation program by correctly classifying machinery and equipment reported on the BPS.
R14:
Annually assess vessels at current market value.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Recommendation No. 1-3a: “Promptly comply with the recommendations from the BOE.” According to the OAR staff, most of the 56 recommendations proposed in the 2002 BOE Assessment Practices Survey (based on fieldwork conducted in March through June 2001 and January through February 2002) have been implemented. However, based on BOE fieldwork conducted in August 2011, a few of the same problems still remain as reflected in the 34 recommendations and sub-recommendations of the 2013 BOE report, including the need to eliminate the backlog of assessable new construction. (See Appendices A and B.) The Jury looked more closely at all current BOE reports to see if any of the other California counties had significant backlog problems. “Backlog” is mentioned in only three other county reports. Only Trinity County seems to have any backlog problem, in their requests for informal review. Unlike San Francisco, no other county has a backlog severe enough to warrant a recommendation to eliminate it. Continuity Report on the OAR