San Mateo County 2008-2009 - California Grand Jury Reports

Trashtalk:

281 pages 13 findings 10 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 13 findings

F1: In the proposal process, the requirement that all proposers use the same operational assumptions to obtain comparable costs was useful to evaluators but does not apply to the actual costs and contracts that the individual member agencies can negotiate.

F2: The process allowed for alternative proposals, yet they were not required to be considered.

F3: As a condition of participation, proposers had to agree not to appeal decisions.

F4: In the evaluation process, the “reasonableness” points were not distinguished from the “competitiveness” points.

F5: Neither the individual members of the Evaluation Committee nor the individual members of the Selection Committee were required to report how many of the overall points assigned to each criterion were based on “reasonableness” or “competitiveness.”

F6: The South Bayside Waste Management Authority’s (SBWMA) consultant reported that Norcal’s references in San Jose were not checked.

F7: South Bay Recycling (SBR) was the only proposer that did not provide for on-site management in its original cost proposal.

F8: SBR has asked the SBWMA to cover $1.2 million for mistakes and omissions in its original proposal. 15

F9: It appears that SBWMA did not give sufficient consideration to SBR’s notices of violation in the operation of its Southern California operations.

F10: The Grand Jury could not confirm that the proposals were adequately evaluated or reflected a thorough analysis of the proposal content and contractor background.

F11: SBWMA Executive Director chaired three of the four Evaluation and Selection Committees until removed from the Shoreway Facility Contract Selection Committee by the Chairman of the SBWMA Board.

F12: The SBWMA Executive Director solicited emails from active proposers, asking them to attest to the integrity of the RFP process.

F13: No elected officials are on SBWMA’s Board of Directors. Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that the SBWMA did not follow its stated goal to “conduct the RFP process with integrity and transparency.” The Grand Jury has no opinion on which contractors should have been selected. However, the Grand Jury has no confidence in the RFP processes by which the Collections Services Contractor and the Shoreway Master Plan Facility Contractor were selected. The Grand Jury further concludes that:

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Allied Waste Systems of San Mateo County (Allied)

R2: Bayside Environmental Services & Transfer (BEST), a joint venture of Peninsula Sanitary Group, South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Green Waste Recovery and Zanker Road Resource Management

R3: Greenstar, LLC (Greenstar)

R4: Hudson Baylor Corp (HBC) with Waste Solutions Group (WSG)

R5: Norcal Waste Systems of San Mateo County (Norcal)

R6: Republic Services, Inc. (Republic)

R7: South Bay Recycling, LLC (SBR), a joint venture of Community Recycling & Resource Recovery and Potential Industries The Evaluation Process for Selecting the Shoreway Facilities Operations Contractor The SBWMA divided the judging process for the Shoreway Facility Operations Contract into two committees: an Evaluation Committee and a Selection Committee. The Evaluation Committee analyzed and scored the proposals. The Selection Committee considered the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee and selected a Shoreway Facility Operations Contractor. On April 23, 2009, SBWMA selected SBR as the Shoreway Facilities operator. Evaluation Committee and Selection Committee The SBWMA divided the judging process for the Shoreway Facility Operations Contract into two committees: an Evaluation Committee and a Selection Committee. The Evaluation Committee analyzed and scored the proposals. The Selection Committee considered the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee and selected a Shoreway Facility Operations Contractor. Members of the Evaluation Committee independently analyzed and scored the proposals. The results were jointly discussed at three separate meetings with the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee unanimously approved the Evaluation Committee’s recommendation to short list SBR and HBC/WSG. On April 23, 2009, SBWMA selected SBR as the Shoreway Facility operator. How the Proposal was Scored The Evaluation Committee members numerically scored proposing companies using the evaluation criteria and the weighting described in the RFP. The Evaluation Committee envisioned a short-list being developed prior to technical interviews. All seven proposers participated in the technical interview and presentation process. Each Evaluation Committee member individually reviewed and scored each evaluation criterion based on a maximum allowed score for each category. The total maximum score was 500 points. Table 3 shows the Evaluation Criteria, the maximum allowed scores for each criterion, and the actual scores as totaled from individual evaluations. The Table also illustrates the SBWMA’s point evaluation score of each firm’s qualifications, technical proposal, cost proposal, and other considerations. The results were jointly discussed at three separate meetings with the Selection Committee. At the last meeting on June 25, 2008, the Selection Committee unanimously approved the Evaluation Committee’s recommendation to short list SBR and HBC/WSG. Table 3: Proposer Evaluation Score for the Facility Operations Contract MAX CRITERIA SCORE Allied BEST Greenstar HBC Norcal Republic SBR 1 Responsiveness to RFP Pass/Fail P P P P P P P Company’s Qualifications 100 81.5 88 73.5 85.8 84.5 74.5 84 2 & Experience 3 Cost Proposal 100 81.8 70.4 64.9 79.1 72 62 86 SRDC Operations Proposal 100 67.8 80 64.5 87.3 75.5 63.8 86 4 MRF Design, & Installation 5 Start-up Proposal 75 58.5 65.3 63 68.6 61.9 65.3 59.6 6 Materials Marketing Plan 75 62.5 60.8 42.8 66 60.8 55.9 74.3 7 Environ. Enhancements 25 15 15 15 10 22.5 10 18.8 Number & Materiality of 25 25 25 0 25 25 0 22.5 8 Exceptions TOTAL SCORE 500 392 405 324 422 402 332 431 RANKING 5 3 7 2 4 6 1 The scores assigned to each of the proposal’s criteria reflect the extent to which the proposer fulfills the requirements of the evaluation criteria and meets the needs of the SBWMA relative to the other competitors. Each evaluator reviewed each of the proposals and cost information using a set of established criteria. SBWMA’s Recommendation for Shoreway Facility Operator Based on a review of the seven proposals submitted, technical interviews, site visits, follow-up questions and answers, and reference checks and litigation review, the Selection Committee, which was chaired by the SBWMA’s Executive Director, initially recommended that SBR and HBC be short listed for negotiations to determine the selected facility operations contractor. The Selection Committee announced that SBR, a joint venture of Community Recycling & Resource Recovery and Potential Industries and HBC (with Waste Solutions Group) stood clearly apart from the other five proposers for the following reasons (as quoted from the SBWMA Selection Committee report of July 17, 2008): • “The entirety of their responses (original proposals, written answer to technical questions, and technical interview performance) was the most thorough and complete. • These companies offer a combination of experience, technical capability, and pricing that set them apart from the rest of the field. These two firms had the two lowest overall cost proposals. • These two firms are the two most qualified single stream MRF operators and offer the best commodity marketing capabilities. This is critical given the growing importance of commodity revenues to fund SBWMA operations. • Each of the two firms stand out financially with HBC offering the highest commodity revenue guarantee at $10.1 million and SBR offering the lowest overall cost proposal. • Each firm has a strong plan for increasing diversion at the transfer station and unique attributes to their proposed transfer station operations. HBC put together the most innovative base proposal for transfer station diversion, while SBR offers the highest payloads and lowest cost transfer operation.” Operating Costs The scores for the operating cost proposals were considered 20% of the total possible points. SBR’s original operating cost proposal was $4.2 million less per year than the next lowest proposal. Table 4: Annual Operating Costs Including Interest (as of July 24, 2008) Proposed Annual Cost to SBWMA Allied $15,870,629 BEST $17,703,982 Greenstar $16,599,003 HBC $15,216,385 Norcal $17,549,549 Republic $19,775,788 SBR $11,648,528 10 Cost Evaluation Explanations SBWMA stated: “1. South Bay was ranked highest by virtue of the lowest overall cost proposal at $11.6 million. South Bay’s scoring was reduced somewhat on ‘reasonableness’ due to the Evaluation Committee’s concerns regarding their extremely low transportation costs and management/administration staffing levels.

R8: Potential Collection Impacts. Compatibility of plans for vehicle compliance with State of California Air Resources Board rules; ability to respond to issues identified during the environmental review, compliance, and permitting process associated with the development of new facilities (if any are to be developed), and hauling impacts (in terms of total annual miles traveled compared to others) related to distance between vehicle maintenance and parking facilities and Shoreway facility.

R9: Additional Member Agency Services. Reasonableness and reliability of proposed collection methods, technology, equipment, and containers; reasonableness of productivity and operating assumptions (i.e., number of routes, route drivers, route hours, stops per route, and other operating statistics) for: a. San Mateo County service area b. Atherton c. Hillsborough d. Redwood City e. Burlingame f. Foster City g. City of San Mateo

R10: Other Proposed Services. Compatibility of other services proposed by company as per Section 3.15 of this RFP. 6.2.4 Cost Proposal (200 points)

28 pages 11 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: San Mateo County’s (County) Williamson Act (WA) program has not been audited in the entire 40-year history of the program. The California State Department of Conservation (DOC) completed the County’s first audit in May 2007 and found substantial instances of non-compliance with provisions of the WA and the related Open Space Subvention Act (OSSA).

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Complete the Williamson Act (WA) surveys as soon as possible.

F2: Most of the County’s WA parcels were enrolled in the 1960s and 1970s with fewer than 20 new enrollments in the last decade.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Cancel the WA contracts with those owners who have failed to respond to the second notice to submit their surveys.

F3: Acreage restricted under WA contracts equal 16% of all countywide lands yet amount to less than one tenth of 1% of total countywide assessed value.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Identify properties that have no apparent agricultural, open space, or recreational use and determine which contracts are subject to nonrenewal.

F4: There are 543 parcels comprising 47,058 acres enrolled in the WA program compared to a total of 219,316 parcels and 286,720 acres countywide. Only 2,750 of the County’s 47,058 WA acreage are categorized as prime agricultural land.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Publish revised San Mateo County Land Conservation Act Uniform Rules and Procedures no later than December 31, 2009.

F5: Most non-prime acreage is used for grazing.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Commission an annual report from all agencies and not-for-profits acquiring and maintaining open space lands in the County, such as the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), setting forth plans for the use of their lands for agricultural purposes. 10

F6: The 2008 assessed value of WA restricted lands totaled $173 million-- $68 million in assessed land value and $105 million in improvements, personal property and fixtures-- compared to a total countywide assessed value of over $132 billion.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: After the Planning Department has identified non-compliant properties, the Treasurer & Tax Collector should quantify lost tax revenues for tax years 2002 through 2008 resulting from the County’s non-compliance with the provisions of the WA no later than six months after the completion of the surveys.

F7: More than half of the WA restricted parcels, approximately 250, have WA restricted assessed land values of less than $1,000 per acre. Only 70 parcels have assessed land values greater than $10,000 per acre. The overall average assessed land value for WA restricted lands is less than $1,500 per acre. By comparison, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) paid an average of $6,000 per acre for land acquired between 2003 and 2008 as part of its Coastal Annexation program with some lands acquired by the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) as part of the program, exceeding $20,000 an acre.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: After the Treasurer & Tax Collector has calculated the lost tax revenues, the Controller should calculate the impact on school or special districts that otherwise would have received an allocation of any lost tax revenues for the period including tax years 2002 through 2008.

F8: The market value of agricultural land in the County has increased 500% in the last 50 years.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The Assessor’s Office and the Planning Department should jointly author an annual report stating the County’s compliance with the provisions of the WA.

F9: The San Mateo County Assessor’s Office (Assessor’s Office) has been using rental data from the 1980s, with some rental data reportedly dating back to the 1960s, in calculating the restricted value of agricultural lands.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: Subventions payments not used to defray the costs of the Planning Department’s administration of the program should be assigned to the San Mateo Farm Bureau to be used to fund marketing programs to promote San Mateo County’s locally produced agricultural products. Encourage local not-for-profit agencies acquiring and maintaining open space lands, such as the POST, to contribute to the funding of such marketing programs.

F10: The County’s non-compliance with certain provisions of the WA resulted in $73,892 in penalties and the suspension of any further subvention payments typically amounting to more than $50,000 annually from the State. The WA and OSSA payment program may be suspended as part of the State budget crisis resolution.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: Convene a conference after all the commissioned reports have been received to develop a comprehensive agricultural lands strategy designed to increase the amount of prime agricultural acreage, establish additional Farmland Security Zones, maximize subvention payments by the State of California, fund marketing programs for locally produced products, and increase agricultural use of open space lands to the extent these strategies are consistent with acceptable environmental standards. Attachment 1 12 Warren Slocum 555 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 phone 650-363-4500 fax 650-363-1903 Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder email wslocum@smcare.org web www.smcare.org September 8, 2009 Honorable George A. Miram Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Re: Response to the 2008-09 Grand Jury findings and recommendations Dear Judge Miram: I thank the 2008-09 Grand Jury for their constructive review of San Mateo County’s management of the California Land Conservation Act, commonly referred to as Williamson Act, properties. I look forward to using their constructive review of our process to improve the assessed value product that we produce for the citizens and taxing jurisdictions of San Mateo County. This years report focused on the 2007 compliance audit of San Mateo County’s Williamson Act and Open Space Subvention Act programs by the California Department of Conservation. As the report accurately states, accountability for various aspects of the program are distributed to various County officials. The legislative body of a local governmental entity negotiates the contract with private landowners restricting the use of their land. Once the contract is approved and recorded, the County Assessor has very specific responsibilities in determining the assessed value as articulated in the California Revenue and Taxation Code. The assessed value of these enforceably restricted open space lands is determined by our appraisal staff each year. I’m concerned that the tenor of this report and its accompanying press release do not fully represent the hard work and dedication we expend each year in preparing a fair and equitable assessment roll. I want to acknowledge our staff for their hard work, professionalism and commitment to serving San Mateo County and the San Mateo County taxpayer. Their continuing dedication to improving our performance is greatly appreciated. Listed on the following pages are the 2008-09 Grand Jury findings and recommendations followed by our response which attempts to clarify and correct any misunderstandings in the official report, press release and related media coverage. Please keep in mind that my responses pertain only to the Assessor responsibilities under the Williamson Act. Response to the 2008-09 Grand Jury findings and recommendations

F11: The County Building and Planning Department (Planning Department) and Assessor’s Office have instituted a procedure to selectively audit 20% of WA properties annually. Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

180 pages 8 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: Employee wages and compensation packages are not affordable. The escalating employee costs can and should be reversed in the twenty cities of San Mateo County.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Convene at least one public session in 2009 devoted to controlling employee costs by reviewing all applicable issues in this report, including but not limited to the issues presented below. The session should result in a Wage, Benefit and City- Staffing Action Plan.

F2: Long-term solutions, in addition to stop-gap measures such as temporary wage freezes and furloughs, are needed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Create a Citizen “Wage Benefit and City Staffing” Task Force consisting of five to seven members, drawn by lottery from resident applicants, charged with: a) Attending the session(s) convened per Recommendation One b) Creating and reviewing the Wage, Benefit and City-Staffing Action Plan (Action Plan) that is produced by the Task Force from this session c) If not satisfied with the Action Plan, recommending ballot measures, in consultation with the city attorney, for the city council to sponsor at the next regularly scheduled election The items in the Action Plan should address but not be limited to:

F3: Union contracts for new municipal employees can be introduced, reducing the cost to cities for both pension and post-retirement health care plans.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Initiating competitive hiring practices to: a) Broaden the compensation horizon by considering comparable jobs in both the private and public sectors. b) Employ more market-oriented compensation practices so that salaries can adjust up or down in times of high and low competition for labor. c) Consider the number of applicants for respective jobs, when negotiating salaries, noting, for example, that there are often 300 to 1000 applicants for firefighter jobs. d) Develop more applicants by initiating outreach programs to universities, community colleges, returning veterans, and local high schools, especially for police recruits. e) Join with other cities, and/or the County to create a central training center that promotes cross-training and succession planning for existing staff, and, additionally, introduces qualified applicants from the private sector to public sector service.

F4: For current, as well as newly hired employees, salary increases, total days off, and the ability to accrue and cash out sick leave, can be contained.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Reducing need for Staff by: a) Expanding the use of technology to streamline services. b) Exploring the possibility of contracting out some functions currently performed by city employees, while giving those employees the opportunity to cost-effectively retain those functions in house. c) Creating partnerships with other cities and/or the county to include, for example: payroll, human resources, landscaping, fire fighting, police, recreation, and, custodial work. The County already provides centralized training and dispatch services.

F5: The practice of basing compensation packages on those of nearby cities contributes to higher employee costs overall. Ibid: Emde, Lionel; for verification see: http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3110 see #6 on consent calendar & attachment http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3146 see consent calendar minutes

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Increasing Public Involvement by: a) Holding public hearings before initiating closed session negotiations to counter balance strong union pressure in city council election issues and the fact that staff members, who negotiate compensation packages, receive the same negotiated benefits. b) Making public the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the unions that result from these negotiations. c) Placing the MOUs as a current agenda item after two weeks of making them public, and invite discussion in a public arena.

F6: Cost-efficiencies have been achieved by contracting out some services to other cities or to private-sector firms.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Involving Taxpayers: a) If a city council is reluctant to create a two-tier wage and compensation system addressing current and retirement pension and health benefits for new hires for the various unions, the city council should place ballot measures initiating such two-tier systems on local ballots and allow voters to support or reject them.

F7: Cooperation among cities to reduce overlapping functions has been successfully implemented.

F8: Political barriers-to-change exist because the people negotiating employee contracts-- staff, unions and city council members-- all benefit when wage and compensation packages increase. These barriers can be neutralized with public involvement and, possibly, through ballot measures.

20 pages 8 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: The Ravenswood City Elementary School District (Ravenswood) has taken a number of steps to improve student performance; however, there are longstanding inherent challenges, such as a high percentage of English learning students, lack of parent involvement, and poverty in the community, which the District cannot directly control. The charter schools have mitigated some of these factors through setting high expectations for student performance and parent involvement, strong teacher support, empowering site administrators, and laser focus on real-time student performance assessment and corrective action.

F2: Ravenswood understands that many of their students are underperforming and has approved the granting of charter schools to help their students perform better.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Maintain support for the current charter schools in the District-- East Palo Alto Charter School, Edison Brentwood Academy, East Palo Alto Academy Elementary School, East Palo Alto Academy High School, and East Palo Alto Phoenix Academy.

F3: East Palo Alto Charter School students performed exceptionally well in the 2008 state standardized testing. The Edison Brentwood Academy School API score was above all traditional elementary schools in the District. East Palo Alto Academy Elementary School is only in its third year of operation. While scoring low on most measures so far, its affiliation with Stanford University School of Education brings Stanford’s resources, research, and innovation to the school and hopefully, over time, to the district.

Related Recommendations (1)

F4: Student performance at East Palo Alto Academy High School (EPAAHS) is comparable overall to the performance of students with similar demographics at Menlo-Atherton High School (M-A), the nearest traditional high school to East Palo Alto and with the largest portion of students from Ravenswood. The portion of students completing courses required for UC/CSU admission was significantly higher at EPA Academy High School than at M-A. EPAAHS has established an excellent record of preparing its graduates to attend a four-year college.

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: A number of best practices were consistently followed in the charter schools but were sporadically applied in traditional schools.

Related Recommendations (3)

R3: Meet regularly with local charter school leaders to create written objectives describing opportunities to bring successful charter school strategies into the traditional school structure. Investigate such topics as instructional best practices, after school programs that are a continuation of the curriculum, more formalized parent involvement, and attendance management.

R4: Recognize the importance of teachers, who are essential to improving student performance, and increase non-student work time for teachers to prepare, collaborate, receive coaching, observe, and individualize student instruction.

R5: Work collaboratively with the teachers’ union to add flexibility to union agreements needed to allow implementation of the highest impact of best practices from charter schools. Glossary ADA Average Daily Attendance API Academic Performance Index AYP Adequate Yearly Progress CAHSEE California High School Exit Exam CAT California Achievement Test CDE California Department of Education COE San Mateo County Office of Education CST California Standards Test CSU California State University ELA English Language Arts EPA East Palo Alto EPAAES East Palo Alto Academy Elementary School EPAAHS East Palo Alto Academy High School EPACS East Palo Alto Charter School EPAPA East Palo Alto Phoenix Academy (high school) M-A Menlo-Atherton High School STAR California Standardized Testing and Reporting NCLB No Child Left Behind UC University of California

F6: The Stanford University School of Education is highly invested and committed to the long-term improvement of K-12 student performance across the country and, specifically, in East Palo Alto.

F7: There is not enough ongoing communication among leaders from Ravenswood, the charter schools in the District, and the Stanford University School of Education regarding future vision, best practices, and strategies for improving academic performance in the community. This lack of communication and trust occurs at all levels: between traditional and charter school teachers and principals, the Ravenswood Superintendent and charter school principals, and the Ravenswood School Board and Stanford University. Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Meet with leaders from the Stanford University School of Education with the goal of developing a specific plan within three months describing the best opportunities for collaboration between the organizations.

F8: Traditional schools in Ravenswood have not capitalized from collaboration with the charter schools.

Related Recommendations (1)

9 pages 9 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: The Pharmaceutical Disposal Program (Disposal Program) offers a convenient and low cost alternative to flushing pills and medicinal liquids, human or veterinary, into the wastewater stream and the environment.

F2: The program has thus far diverted over 7.25 tons of potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals from the street and from potential environmental contamination.

F3: There are no disposal bins in Brisbane, Colma, East Palo Alto, La Honda, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, or Woodside.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Expand the Disposal Program throughout the County by working with local jurisdictions to establish the program in all appropriate law enforcement locations.

F4: Marketing efforts to inform citizens of San Mateo County’s pharmaceutical disposal sites have been minimal.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Develop a marketing plan to promote the Pharmaceutical Disposal Program (Disposal Program) at the pharmaceutical dispensing sources throughout the County including pharmacies, doctor offices, hospitals, medical centers, veterinary clinics, senior centers, and retail outlets.

F5: The Disposal Program is monitored primarily by tracking the total number of pounds collected and disposed of by the contractor.

F6: Currently, the South San Francisco Blue Line Transfer station collects sharps, and plans are underway to also collect them in Pescadero, Ox Mountain, San Carlos Transfer Station, and Tower Road. Four Fire departments in San Mateo County collect sharps. As of January 2009, all hospitals are required to take sharps back from patients and dispose of them with their regular hazardous waste stream disposal.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Expand the Disposal Program to include a separate container for sharps at the same drop- off locations.

F7: The Disposal Program is governed by current federal laws and state regulations especially those pertaining to collection and disposal of controlled substances.

F8: County law enforcement experts firmly believe that removal of otherwise unchecked pharmaceutical drugs from potential illegal uses will have a positive result in decreasing drug use countywide.

F9: Manufacturers of pharmaceuticals do not collect and dispose of their unused and expired consumer products. Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: Explore development of a pharmacy take-back option for unused pharmaceuticals in partnership with pharmaceutical manufacturers.

R5: Adopt a resolution in support of HR 1191 and other federal and state legislation that encourages the appropriate disposal of unused pharmaceuticals. Footnotes: 1 Buxton, Herbert T. and Kolpin, Dana W. Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, USGA Fact Sheet FS-027-02, June, 2002 2 North, Karin D., Keeping Surface Waters Drug Free: The New Water Quality Challenge, League of California Cities Magazine, July, 2005 3 Addiction Treatment Resources for Teens and Young Adults, www.drugrehabtreatment,com 4 Partnership for a Drug-Free America, Preventing Teen Abuse of Prescription Drugs-Fact Sheet, 2009 5Sollitto, Marlo, Editor, Seniors and Prescription Drug Addiction, Agingcare.com 6 SMMC Accidental Poisoning Cases report 2005-2008 7 Law enforcement agencies currently participating in the Disposal Program include Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, Daly City, Hillsborough, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo (also serves Foster City), South San Francisco, plus the Sheriff’s offices in Redwood City and Moss Beach (also serves El Granada). U. S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, Title 21, United States Code [USC], Controlled Substances Act 6 San Mateo County’s Pharmaceutical Disposal Program Report

19 pages 11 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: The agreements between Mid-Coast Television (MCTV) and its local chartering agencies have been regularly renewed. In the case of the City of Half Moon Bay (City), the renewal is automatic and without review.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Communicate and coordinate any agreements with Mid-Coast Television (MCTV) in order to speak with one voice in contractual and oversight matters.

F2: Contrary to a provision in the agreement between the City and MCTV, a survey of the viewing public to ascertain the level of satisfaction with the station’s services has never been conducted.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Join with MCTV to create a strategic plan that improves the quality and relevance of service.

F3: The majority of MCTV broadcast programming is archival in nature, often obtained from sources outside the community, and is aired repeatedly. The overwhelming majority of MCTV produced programming is of regularly scheduled government meetings. Some new programming produced by others in the community and offered to MCTV has been rejected on technical grounds and occasionally for reasons of religious advocacy.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Initiate with MCTV a process of improvement based on community surveys and public input. The bylaws of MCTV should be adjusted to codify these reforms.

F4: MCTV now allows its governmental meeting content to be made available by others as fair use, with appropriate source attribution. MCTV claims the copyright ownership of all its recorded public meeting content and reserves the right to restrict its use at any time.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Encourage MCTV to seek out, foster, and broadcast new locally created programming. The agencies should consider Public, Educational, and Services (PEG) Station guidelines as a minimum-programming standard.

F5: Regular sequential archives of past recorded public government meetings older than 18 months are not maintained by MCTV and do not exist. However, it is committed to making recent and future recordings more available to the public through a web- accessible archive.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Work with MCTV to identify and develop new funding sources so that MCTV may carry out its mission more effectively.

F6: The Directors and Station Manager of MCTV acted on April 30, 2009 to eliminate the category of membership, as well as all rights associated with membership through a bylaw change. The MCTV Board absorbed these rights, and became a self-perpetuating governing body. It initiated this action, in part, to eliminate the burden of dissent from the membership.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Direct MCTV to publicly announce and invite the public to participate in its Board meetings. 7

F7: The level of MCTV’s operating revenues is directly proportional to a finite number of cable TV subscribers. Modified MCTV bylaws approved on April 30, 2009 (Attachment 5) 5

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The level of MCTV's operating revenues is directly proportional to a finite number of cable TV subscribers. The City agrees with the findings of the Grand Jury on this issue.

F8: County staff thoroughly documents financial records and correspondence between MCTV and the County.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: County staff thoroughly documents fiscal records and correspondence between MCTV and the County. The City does not have specific knowledge or data to support the Grand Jury's statement/findings on this issue.

F9: Under federal regulations, Public, Educational, and Governmental Access Services (PEG) Stations, such as MCTV, exist to provide specific services to the community that may not be available through other commercial media.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: Under federal regulations, Public, Educational, and Governmental Access Services (PEG) stations, such as MCTV, exist to provide specific services to the community that may not be available through other commercial media. The City agrees with the findings of the Grand Jury on this issue.

F10: Before 2010, the County and the City are the designated public agencies that negotiate with the cable TV companies to acquire the franchise fees that fund MCTV. In addition, the local agencies charter the station and have contractual agreements with MCTV. These agencies also have the right to terminate the operating agreement with MCTV and put the PEG service out for competitive bid.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: Before 2010, the County and the City are the designated public agencies that negotiate with the cable TV companies to acquire the franchise fees that fund MCTV. In additional, the local agencies charter the station and have contractual agreements with MCTV. These agencies also have the right to terminate the operating agreement with MCTV and put the PEG service out for competitive bid. The City agrees with the Grand Jury's findings on this issue. Grand Jury Findings and City of Half Moon Bay Responses October 6, 2009 11.In 2010, State law will supersede the contracts between cable TV operators and their local agencies. However, local agencies will continue to retain responsibility for their PEG stations, as well as the responsibility to distribute a percentage of franchise fees to support PEG operation. The City agrees that, with the enactment of the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA), the State Legislature has preempted local authority to enter into Franchise Agreements with cable providers. The City further agrees that DIVCA, as currently written, provides for local agencies to receive state franchise fees in exchange for the use of public rights-of-way for the delivery of video services provided within their jurisdictions, based on gross revenues, pursuant to a specified formula. However, based on the State's current and past actions in taking local agencies revenues, such as property tax, motor vehicle in-lieu fees and other local revenues, the States ability or willingness to follow through with this commitment is uncertain. Once revenue control is turned over to the State past actions indicate that the revenue amounts to local agencies may be reduced or ultimately eliminated. Time will be the true test of this statement. However, history tends to be a better indicator of the State's commitment or the lack thereof for protecting or continuing to pass through local revenues. Recommendations

F11: In 2010, State law will supersede the contracts between cable TV operators and their local agencies. However, local agencies will continue to retain responsibility for their PEG stations, as well as the responsibility to distribute a percentage of franchise fees to support PEG operation. Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that San Mateo County (County) and the City of Half Moon Bay (City) have exercised little oversight with respect to the quality or relevance of the service Mid-Coast Television (MCTV) provides to the community. The Grand Jury further concludes that:

26 pages 15 findings 16 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 15 findings

F1: The Sequoia Union High School District (District) furthers the goals of the Civic Center Act by authorizing the use of school facilities for non-school-related activities.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Continue its practice of working with the community to find appropriate resolutions for the concerns expressed by the community regarding use of its facilities.

F2: There is a consensus among all parties that there is a need for sports facilities in the area which community groups, such as Pop Warner, can use and that such use benefits the community as a whole. However, there has been disagreement over the hours during the day that the facilities should be available for non-school-related uses.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Review with legal counsel the options available to exempt itself from the Town of Atherton Zoning Ordinance, in the event the Town of Atherton chooses to continue including public school facilities in the Special Event Ordinance and the Special Event Guidelines. The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Town Council for the Town of Atherton:

F3: Concern by the Town of Atherton (Atherton) residents about noise and congestion associated with local public events spurred the Atherton Town Council to enact the Special Events Ordinance (Ordinance) and associated Special Events Guidelines (Guidelines).

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Allow issues related to after-hours use of private school facilities to be left to the schools and their immediate neighbors whenever possible.

F4: There is a current dispute between two publicly elected entities, Atherton and the District, regarding which entity ultimately is authorized to regulate non-school use of the public school facilities.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Encourage qualified citizens from all parts of the Town of Atherton to seek appointment to boards and commissions in order to ensure broader citizen representation that is more reflective of the entire Atherton community.

F5: Pop Warner continues to operate within the conditions specified by the District’s use permit but outside of Atherton’s Ordinance by conducting practices during the week beyond the 7:00 pm cutoff time specified in the Guidelines.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Other materials or mitigation measures deemed necessary by the City Manager or designee;

F6: There are eight cities in the District. No other city within the boundaries of the District imposes specific requirements for Civic Center Act, non-school-related uses of fields or outdoor and indoor facilities.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Parking barricades shall be set back a minimum distance as required by the City Manager or his or her designee to insure site distance clearance from special event site driveways and neighboring driveways. 17.38.070 Permit requirements. A. All special events held on private property shall be limited to no more than two consecutive weeks, including no more than two consecutive weekends. Any event for a longer period of time requires a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. B. All special events shall be publicly noticed at least ten days prior to the issuance of a permit, pursuant to the process outlined in State Planning and Zoning Law section 65091, with a five hundred foot radius notification. However, if the event is not conducted on a single site, or is to be conducted within the public right-of-way, the applicant shall pay for the cost associated with the publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days prior to issuance of a permit. C. The applicant shall execute an agreement acknowledging obligations to comply with all required conditions of the special event permit. D. No more than two special event permits shall be issued in a twelve-month period for special events on any private residential property. 17.38.080 Permit revocation. A special event permit may be revoked by the City Manager or his or her designee in the event of any violation of the special events permit or this code. 17.38.090 Violation as a public nuisance. Each violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor and shall constitute a public nuisance and be subject to abatement as such. Ordinance No. Adopted September 21, 2005 SECTION 3: That the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does hereby declare that any provisions of this Ordinance are severable and, if for any reason any sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be posted in at least three public places according to law and shall take affect and be in force from and after 30 days after its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Introduced this 20th day of July, 2005. Passed and adopted as an Ordinance of the Town of Atherton at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of September, 2005, by the following vote AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Janz, Marsala, Carlson, Conwell, McKeithen NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None /s/ William R. Conwell ___ William R. Conwell, Mayor Town of Atherton ATTEST /s/ Linda Kelly ___ _ Linda Kelly, Acting City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Marc G. Hynes _________________ Marc G. Hynes, City Attorney Ordinance No. Adopted September 21, 2005

F7: The District is concerned that Atherton may attempt to restrict use of the Performing Arts Center for non-school-related uses under the Ordinance.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Other similar activities. C. The following provisions shall apply to special events held at private and public schools and country clubs:

F8: The District has taken into account the concerns of local residents by altering the terms of the Pop Warner use permit for the Menlo-Atherton High School football field to reduce noise and by electing not to install field lights at the school.

F9: Atherton’s Planning Commission (Planning Commission), recognizing that changes were needed in the Ordinance, formed a sub-committee of two members to formulate potential changes to the Ordinance. Atherton officials and the District have voiced concern as to whether the sub-committee’s work will be balanced, given that one of the two members has been an outspoken critic of Pop Warner’s use of M-A’s football field outside of the Guidelines.

F10: According to an Atherton official, four of the five members of the Planning Commission, who will be reviewing proposed changes to the Ordinance, are Lindenwood residents.

F11: Both Atherton and District officials report that the working relationship between the District and Atherton staff has improved significantly over the last 18 months. Conclusions The 2008 – 2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that the Town of Atherton should not impose restrictions on non-school groups using facilities at Menlo-Atherton High School. The Grand Jury also concludes that:

F38133: The management, direction, and control of school facilities under this article are vested in the governing board of the school district which shall promulgate all rules and regulations necessary to provide, at a minimum, for the following: (a) Aid, assistance, and encouragement to any of the activities authorized in Sections 38131 and 38132. (b) Preservation of order in school facilities and on school grounds, and protection of school facilities and school grounds, including, if the governing board deems necessary, appointment of a person who shall have charge of the school facilities and grounds for purposes of their preservation and protection. (c) That the use of school facilities or grounds is not inconsistent with the use of the school facilities or grounds for school purposes or interferes with the regular conduct of schoolwork. 38134. (a) The governing board of any school district shall authorize the use of any school facilities or grounds under its control, when an alternative location is not available, to nonprofit organizations, and clubs or associations organized to promote youth and school activities, including, but not limited to: (1) Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Camp Fire, Inc. (2) Parent-teachers' associations. (3) School-community advisory councils. This subdivision shall not apply to any group that uses school facilities or grounds for fundraising activities that are not beneficial to youth or public school activities of the district, as determined by the governing board. (b) Except as otherwise provided by law, the governing board may charge an amount not to exceed its direct costs for use of its school facilities. Each governing board that decides to levy these charges shall first adopt a policy specifying which activities shall be charged an amount not to exceed direct costs. (c) The governing board of any school district may charge an amount not to exceed its direct costs for use of its school facilities by any entity, including a religious organization or church, that arranges for and supervises sports league activities for youths as described in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 38131. (d) The governing board of any school district that authorizes the use of school facilities or grounds for the purpose specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 38131 shall charge the church or religious denomination an amount at least equal to the district's direct costs. (e) In the case of entertainments or meetings where admission fees are charged or contributions are solicited and the net receipts are not expended for the welfare of the pupils of the district or for charitable purposes, a charge shall be levied for the use of school facilities or grounds which charge shall be equal to fair rental value. (f) If any group activity results in the destruction of school property, the group may be charged for an amount necessary to repay the damages, and further use of facilities may be denied. (g) As used in this section, "direct costs" to the district for the use of school facilities or grounds means those costs of supplies, utilities, janitorial services, services of any other district employees, and salaries paid school district employees necessitated by the organization's use of the school facilities and grounds of the district. (h) As used in this section, "fair rental value" means the direct costs to the district, plus the amortized costs of the school facilities or grounds used for the duration of the activity authorized. (i) Any school district authorizing the use of school facilities or grounds under subdivision (a) shall be liable for any injuries resulting from the negligence of the district in the ownership and maintenance of those facilities or grounds. Any group using school facilities or grounds under subdivision (a) shall be liable for any injuries resulting from the negligence of that group during the use of those facilities or grounds. The district and the group shall each bear the cost of insuring against its respective risks and shall each bear the costs of defending itself against claims arising from those risks. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this subdivision shall not be waived. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to limit or affect the immunity or liability of a school district under Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code, for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of public property.

Page 15

Related Recommendations (1)

R38133: The management, direction, and control of school facilities under this article are vested in the governing board of the school district which shall promulgate all rules and regulations necessary to provide, at a minimum, for the following: (a) Aid, assistance, and encouragement to any of the activities authorized in Sections 38131 and 38132. (b) Preservation of order in school facilities and on school grounds, and protection of school facilities and school grounds, including, if the governing board deems necessary, appointment of a person who shall have charge of the school facilities and grounds for purposes of their preservation and protection. (c) That the use of school facilities or grounds is not inconsistent with the use of the school facilities or grounds for school purposes or interferes with the regular conduct of schoolwork.

F38135: Any use, by any individual, society, group, or organization for the commission of any act intended to further any program or movement the purpose of which is to accomplish the overthrow of the government of the United States or of the state by force, violence, or other unlawful means shall not be permitted or suffered. Any individual, society, group, or organization which commits any act intended to further any program or movement the purpose of which is to accomplish the overthrow of the government by force, violence, or other unlawful means while using school property pursuant to the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Page 17

Related Recommendations (1)

R38135: Any use, by any individual, society, group, or organization for the commission of any act intended to further any program or movement the purpose of which is to accomplish the overthrow of the government of the United States or of the state by force, violence, or other unlawful means shall not be permitted or suffered. Any individual, society, group, or organization which commits any act intended to further any program or movement the purpose of which is to accomplish the overthrow of the government by force, violence, or other unlawful means while using school property pursuant to the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor.

F38136: No governing board of a school district shall grant the use of any school property to any person or organization for any use in violation of Section 38135. For the purpose of determining whether or not any individual, society, group, or organization applying for the use of the school property intends to violate Section 38135, the governing board shall require the making and delivery to the governing board, by the applicant of a written statement of information in the following form: STATEMENT OF INFORMATION The undersigned states that, to the best of his or her knowledge, the school property for use of which application is hereby made will not be used for the commission of any act intended to further any program or movement the purpose of which is to accomplish the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence or other unlawful means; That ____, the organization on whose behalf he or she is making application for use of school property, does not, to the best of his or her knowledge, advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States or of the State of California by force, violence, or other unlawful means, and that, to the best of his or her knowledge, it is not a Communist action organization or Communist front organization required by law to be registered with the Attorney General of the United States. This statement is made under the penalties of perjury. _____________________________ (Signature) The school board may require the furnishing of additional information as it deems necessary to make the determination that the use of school property for which application is made would not violate Section 38135. Any person applying for the use of school property on behalf of any society, group, or organization shall be a member of the applicant group and, unless he or she is an officer of the group, must present written authorization from the applicant group to make the application. The governing board of any school district may, in its discretion, consider any statement of information or written authorization made pursuant to the requirements of this section as being continuing in effect for the purposes of this section for the period of one year from the date of the statement of information or written authorization.

Page 17

Related Recommendations (1)

R38136: No governing board of a school district shall grant the use of any school property to any person or organization for any use in violation of Section 38135. For the purpose of determining whether or not any individual, society, group, or organization applying for the use of the school property intends to violate Section 38135, the governing board shall require the making and delivery to the governing board, by the applicant of a written statement of information in the following form: STATEMENT OF INFORMATION The undersigned states that, to the best of his or her knowledge, the school property for use of which application is hereby made will not be used for the commission of any act intended to further any program or movement the purpose of which is to accomplish the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence or other unlawful means; That ____, the organization on whose behalf he or she is making application for use of school property, does not, to the best of his or her knowledge, advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States or of the State of California by force, violence, or other unlawful means, and that, to the best of his or her knowledge, it is not a Communist action organization or Communist front organization required by law to be registered with the Attorney General of the United States. This statement is made under the penalties of perjury. _____________________________ (Signature) The school board may require the furnishing of additional information as it deems necessary to make the determination that the use of school property for which application is made would not violate Section 38135. Any person applying for the use of school property on behalf of any society, group, or organization shall be a member of the applicant group and, unless he or she is an officer of the group, must present written authorization from the applicant group to make the application. The governing board of any school district may, in its discretion, consider any statement of information or written authorization made pursuant to the requirements of this section as being continuing in effect for the purposes of this section for the period of one year from the date of the statement of information or written authorization.

F38137: Written statements of information as required by Section 38136 need not be under oath, but shall contain a written declaration that they are made under the penalty of perjury, and any person so signing the statements who willfully states therein as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is subject to the penalties prescribed for perjury in the Penal Code.

Page 19

Related Recommendations (1)

R38137: Written statements of information as required by Section 38136 need not be under oath, but shall contain a written declaration that they are made under the penalty of perjury, and any person so signing the statements who willfully states therein as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is subject to the penalties prescribed for perjury in the Penal Code.

13 pages 19 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 19 findings

F1: Redwood City currently has one camera. The RWCPD also requested approval from Caltrans for installation of cameras at three Caltrans intersections which have a history of frequent collisions involving red light violations.

F2: Currently, there is no photo enforcement notification sign alerting traffic traveling eastbound on Whipple Avenue towards Veterans Boulevard. There are signs posted at all major entry points into Redwood City, as well as, southbound Veterans Boulevard before and after the intersection at Whipple Avenue. There is a pole on eastbound Whipple Avenue that appears to have sufficient space for the addition of a sign notifying drivers that the intersection is monitored by a camera. 2

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Install a photo enforcement camera notification sign alerting traffic traveling eastbound on Whipple Avenue approaching Veterans Boulevard.

F3: The RWCPD initiated notification to the public of the installation of the camera through a press release that was issued on February 14, 2008 to the Redwood City Daily News, the San Mateo County Times, and the San Francisco Examiner. It was also distributed to television stations.

F4: The citation sent to the address of the registered vehicle owner contains the necessary information as seen in Attachment 1, and an internet site URL with a personal password allowing the vehicle owner to view the film clip of the violation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Continue to provide clear evidence to registered vehicle owners being cited for photo enforcement camera violations.

F5: There is no public educational material on the RWCPD website related to the red light photo enforcement program.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Consider expanding the RWCPD web-site to include public education about the photo enforcement camera notification system.

F6: In the initial six months of the photo enforcement red light traffic camera’s (camera) operation, the RWCPD confirmed there were 527 red light violations issued, and only one collision on eastbound Whipple Avenue. Prior to the camera installation, there was an average of six accidents every six months from 2001 through 2005. Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Develop an annual review process which compares the number of collisions pre- and post- installation of the photo enforcement camera. Determine whether the equipment is serving as an effective deterrent and whether additional safety features should be implemented. Attachment #1 – Sample Ticket A – Picture of vehicle and the signal light B – Picture of vehicle traveling through intersection C – Picture of rear license plate of vehicle D – Picture of Driver’s face 5 6 Attachment 2 Excerpt from the report from the Redwood City Police Department to the Redwood City Mayor and City Council dated May 22, 2006 HIGHEST REPORTED ACCIDENT INTERSECTIONS – ALL TYPES Red Light Violation INTERSECTION All Traffic Accidents Accidents Injury Non-injury Total Injury Non-Injury Total Woodside - Broadwav 47 70 117 12 15 27 Woodside – Middlefield 36 44 80 3 6 9 Veterans – Whipple 30 46 76 6 6 12 El Camino – Jefferson 29 42 71 3 5 8 El Camino – Brewster 26 36 62 5 6 11 El Camino – Whipple 30 30 60 6 6 12 Woodside – Veterans 25 34 59 6 11 17 Jefferson – Hudson 15 12 27 7 7 14 TOP 5 INTERSECTIONS WITH RED LIGHT VIOLATION ACCIDENTS WOODSIDE – BROADWAY 47 70 117 12 15 27 JEFFERSON - BROADWAY 33 31 64 16 16 32 WOODSIDE – VETERANS 25 34 59 6 11 17 JEFFERSON – HUDSON 15 12 27 7 7 14 WINSLOW – BREWSTER 10 10 20 7 7 14 Total number of red light violation citations issued from 1/1/01 to 12/31/05: 2,169 Total number of accidents from 1/1/01 to 12/31/05: 7,654 Total number of those accidents that resulted in non-fatal injuries: 2,038 Total number of those accidents that resulted in fatal injuries: 13 Total number of those that were non-injury: 5,603 Total number of accidents from 1/1/01 to 12/31/05 caused by red light violations: 304 Total number of accidents resulted in non-fatal injuries: 198 Total number of those accidents that resulted in fatal injuries: 1 Total number of those that were non-injury: 105 Total percentage of red light violation accidents from 1/1/01 to 12/31/05: 4% 7

F7: The Redwood City City Council decision to install the camera on the eastbound direction of Whipple Avenue was supported by data collected by the RWCPD.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Continue to move forward with the installation of photo enforcement red light cameras in accordance with the Redwood City Police Department’s (RWCPD) analysis of the number of collisions that support the installation of these lights.

F8: The RWCPD technically has complied with the California Vehicle Code by posting the required photo enforcement signage at major entry points to Redwood City. However, drivers heading eastbound on Whipple Avenue are not being warned that the intersection is monitored.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Install a photo enforcement camera notification sign alerting traffic traveling eastbound on Whipple Avenue approaching Veterans Boulevard.

F9: The RWCPD provided sufficient notification to the public of the installation of the camera.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Continue the practice of widespread public notice of activation of new automated red light photo enforcement cameras at intersections.

F10: In spite of the fact that drivers who violate the traffic light law are not stopped immediately after the violation, the drivers are given clear evidence documenting the violation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Continue to provide clear evidence to registered vehicle owners being cited for photo enforcement camera violations.

F11: The RWCPD does not provide on its web page a link providing general information to the public about the red light photo enforcement program. Such information would be beneficial in helping the public understand the program.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Consider expanding the RWCPD web-site to include public education about the photo enforcement camera notification system.

F12: In the six months since the operation of the photo enforcement red light camera, the number of collisions that occurred at the intersection of Whipple Avenue and Veterans Boulevard has decreased. 3

Related Recommendations (1)

F13: The Redwood City City Council decision to install the camera on the eastbound direction of Whipple Avenue was supported by data collected by the RWCPD.

Related Recommendations (1)

F14: The RWCPD technically has complied with the California Vehicle Code by posting the required photo enforcement signage at major entry points to Redwood City. However, drivers heading eastbound on Whipple Avenue are not being warned that the intersection is monitored.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Install a photo enforcement camera notification sign alerting traffic traveling eastbound on Whipple Avenue approaching Veterans Boulevard.

F15: The RWCPD provided sufficient notification to the public of the installation of the camera.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Continue the practice of widespread public notice of activation of new automated red light photo enforcement cameras at intersections.

F16: In spite of the fact that drivers who violate the traffic light law are not stopped immediately after the violation, the drivers are given clear evidence documenting the violation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Continue to provide clear evidence to registered vehicle owners being cited for photo enforcement camera violations.

F17: The RWCPD does not provide on its web page a link providing general information to the public about the red light photo enforcement program. Such information would be beneficial in helping the public understand the program.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Consider expanding the RWCPD web-site to include public education about the photo enforcement camera notification system.

F18: In the six months since the operation of the photo enforcement red light camera, the number of collisions that occurred at the intersection of Whipple Avenue and Veterans Boulevard has decreased. 3

Related Recommendations (1)

F2005: The data also included the number of collisions involving vehicles that entered the intersections in violation of the red light traffic laws. The data was presented to the Redwood City City Council (Council) with the request to install cameras. Since public safety is of paramount importance to the Council, it granted approval in 2007. (Attachment 2) The RWCPD installed a camera at one intersection under its exclusive jurisdiction. The camera is located in the eastbound direction of Whipple Avenue at Veterans Boulevard. During the five-year period mentioned above, there were 76 collisions, of which 64 involved vehicles traveling eastbound on Whipple Avenue. The camera started capturing violations in February 2008. Violators were given warnings for 30 days prior to citations being issued, complying with the Code. Investigation To conduct its investigation, the 2008-2009 San Mateo Civil Grand Jury interviewed officials from the Redwood City City Council and the Redwood City Police Department. The Grand Jury reviewed the minutes of the Redwood City City Council; read newspaper articles published in the San Mateo Daily News, the Oakland Tribune, San Francisco Examiner, and the San Mateo Daily Journal; reviewed California Codes relating to photo enforcement red light camera citations, specifically the Government, Penal, and Vehicle Codes; read articles posted on public websites; and visited the intersection to note configuration and signage. Consideration as to the potential financial stream from the fines paid for these violations was considered. However, due to insufficient data related to the program’s income and expenses, discussion was limited solely to whether the photo enforcement camera increased traffic safety at the one intersection in Redwood City. Findings The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury found that: • Redwood City currently has one camera. The RWCPD also requested approval from Caltrans for installation of cameras at three Caltrans intersections which have a history of frequent collisions involving red light violations. • Currently, there is no photo enforcement notification sign alerting traffic traveling eastbound on Whipple Avenue towards Veterans Boulevard. There are signs posted at all major entry points into Redwood City, as well as, southbound Veterans Boulevard before and after the intersection at Whipple Avenue. There is a pole on eastbound Whipple Avenue that appears to have sufficient space for the addition of a sign notifying drivers that the intersection is monitored by a camera. 2 • The RWCPD initiated notification to the public of the installation of the camera through a press release that was issued on February 14, 2008 to the Redwood City Daily News, the San Mateo County Times, and the San Francisco Examiner. It was also distributed to television stations. • The citation sent to the address of the registered vehicle owner contains the necessary information as seen in Attachment 1, and an internet site URL with a personal password allowing the vehicle owner to view the film clip of the violation. • There is no public educational material on the RWCPD website related to the red light photo enforcement program. • In the initial six months of the photo enforcement red light traffic camera’s (camera) operation, the RWCPD confirmed there were 527 red light violations issued, and only one collision on eastbound Whipple Avenue. Prior to the camera installation, there was an average of six accidents every six months from 2001 through 2005. Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that: • The Redwood City City Council decision to install the camera on the eastbound direction of Whipple Avenue was supported by data collected by the RWCPD. • The RWCPD technically has complied with the California Vehicle Code by posting the required photo enforcement signage at major entry points to Redwood City. However, drivers heading eastbound on Whipple Avenue are not being warned that the intersection is monitored. • The RWCPD provided sufficient notification to the public of the installation of the camera. • In spite of the fact that drivers who violate the traffic light law are not stopped immediately after the violation, the drivers are given clear evidence documenting the violation. • The RWCPD does not provide on its web page a link providing general information to the public about the red light photo enforcement program. Such information would be beneficial in helping the public understand the program. • In the six months since the operation of the photo enforcement red light camera, the number of collisions that occurred at the intersection of Whipple Avenue and Veterans Boulevard has decreased. Recommendations The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Redwood City City Council: 1. Continue to move forward with the installation of photo enforcement red light cameras in accordance with the Redwood City Police Department’s (RWCPD) analysis of the number of collisions that support the installation of these lights.

Page 2

9 pages 7 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The Daly City City Council has the authority to set the compensation level and job description for the Daly City City Clerk position.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Restore retroactively the compensation of the Daly City City Clerk to the level at the beginning of her term in November 2008.

F2: In March 2009, the City Manager recommended and the City Council approved the reduction in the City Clerk’s compensation by 48%. This action took place four months after the City Clerk’s election to office.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Establish a fixed compensation for elected officials such as the City Clerk. A committee should be commissioned to review comparable compensation, position responsibilities, and other factors, and make a recommendation to the City Council.

F3: There are no professional qualifications required for a Daly City resident to run for City Clerk.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Identify a human resources specialist to work with all parties to restore a productive working environment and to lay out a plan to improve the capability of the City Clerk.

F4: The role and responsibilities of the City Clerk were not changed from those of the previous City Clerk.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Encourage the City Clerk to attain available training through the City Clerks Association and obtain certification.

F5: The current City Clerk does not have the same professional experience that previous City Clerks have had.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Reconsider asking the electorate to change the position of City Clerk to an appointed instead of elected position.

F6: The City Clerk does not currently hold either of the two certifications offered by the California City Clerks Association -- Certified Municipal City Clerk or Master Municipal City Clerk.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Consider establishing certification or other minimum qualifications for future City Clerks if the office becomes appointed.

F7: Despite expressing concern about the new City Clerk’s lack of experience, the City’s senior staff has done little if anything to help the City Clerk learn the job. Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that the Daly City City Clerk’s compensation reduction was unjustified. The Grand Jury further concludes that:

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Refrain from reducing the compensation of elected City officials during their terms of office without their consent.

17 pages 16 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 16 findings

F1: Since the sale of the water system to CalWater in 2005, LTCWD has not been involved in any manner in the delivery of water to its residents.

F2: Although it no longer provides water, LTCWD is still considered a water district. It continues to receive a portion of the property taxes paid by residents. The LTCWD 1 LAFCo’s legislatively mandated role is to oversee orderly growth and development of the various agencies. LAFCo is required to review periodically the agencies and make a determination of whether an agency should be considered as: a) Status Quo, the entity does not want or cannot exceed the current area of service, b) Expanded, the entity is expected to expand its physical boundaries and service area at some time, or c) Zero, the district is planning on or should take steps to dissolve. Board recognizes that it receives property tax revenue because it is a water district, which is chartered to deliver and remove water as a service to its residents.

F3: In the most recent fiscal year, 2007, LTCWD revenue from property taxes was $209,966.

F4: The water rates in the LTCWD decreased by 14% for Los Trancos Woods and Vista Verde residents, and 39% for Blue Oaks residents following the sale to CalWater.

F5: Since the transfer of the water distribution business to CalWater in 2005, CalWater, in conjunction with LTCWD, has been responsible for setting water rates for Los Trancos residents. At the time of transfer, CalWater agreed to administer rebate programs on behalf of LTCWD. a. Under the Water Cost Offset Program, approximately 40% of LTCWD’s share of property tax revenue is rebated to Los Trancos and Vista Verde residents in the form of reductions in water charges. b. Another 10% of LTCWD’s share of property taxes is rebated to residents in the form of incentives related to homeowner water conservation investments.

F6: Section 30000 of the Water Code does not limit a water district solely to the acquisition and delivery of water. A water district may provide services, including wastewater collection and disposal, garbage collection, fire protection, and recreational services related to district owned lands.

F7: Two unimproved parcels and a small reservoir were excluded from the CalWater sale. These properties are currently zoned as residential. LTCWD primarily focuses on the areas of wild-land fire prevention, emergency preparedness, encouraging water conservation, and managing the three properties retained after the CalWater transaction.

F8: The LTCWD reservoir is located near a pond owned by the Town of Portola Valley. The reservoir can be reached by a short trail that is owned by LTCWD and is connected to longer recreational trails owned by the Town of Portola Valley.

F9: According to LTCWD Board meeting minutes, residents wish to maintain the land and reservoir, which were retained by LTCWD in a natural state for recreational use. The LTCWD’s board has made unsuccessful attempts to reach an agreement with a potential successor agency to maintain the property. 3

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) work directly with the Los Trancos County Water District Board in identifying an agency that will take over the ownership and management of the two unimproved parcels and the reservoir.

R2: The Los Trancos County Water District Board (LTCWD) seek advice from legal counsel on the most appropriate approach to the property tax transfer to one or more agencies to ensure the tax transfer remains in effect for the benefit of the residents after dissolution. This will then enable the Board to: a. Secure an agreement with another agency to own and manage the three parcels of property, b. Apply for the re-zoning of the property to assure that the wishes of the residents are achieved, c. Identify those activities it is currently engaged in that are deemed essential to Los Trancos Woods residents and pursue agreements with other, agencies to continue those activities. Agreements may need to include the transfer of some LTCWD property tax revenue to fund these activities on behalf of Los Trancos Woods residents into the future, d. Determine how the needs of local residents would best be served, i.e. by transforming LTCWD into a “recreation and parks district”3, or working with a residents association to encompass some LTCWD activities, and 3 A “recreation and parks district” is a class of special districts that provides community recreation, park, and open- space facilities and recreation services within specified boundaries and under local control. 7 e. Work with LAFCo to pursue dissolution of LTCWS as a water district, once successor agency agreements and property tax transfers are completed to the satisfaction of the residents.

F10: The Town of Portola Valley, the Woodside Fire District, San Mateo County, and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District are agencies in the Los Trancos area which could provide services now provided by LTCWD.

F11: The LTCWD Board is the only governmental body currently representing the specific and unique needs of Los Trancos Woods and Vista Verde residents.

F12: California State Revenue and Tax Code Section 99.02 permits an agency to transfer property tax to another agency if the original agency determines that it no longer needs the tax revenue.

F13: An opinion from the State Attorney General, #05-809, published February 9, 2006, said, “Hence, it is evident from this legislative history that the current language of section 99.02 is intended to authorize local agencies to enter into agreements changing the property tax revenue allocation as between them in the absence of a jurisdictional change.” The opinion quoted the analysis of AB 241 which said, “The purpose of this bill is to give local government more flexibility in their own fiscal affairs. There could be a number of reasons why an agency would want to give some of its property tax to another. Its revenue picture or service needs may change over time so the fixed amount of property tax is no longer needed.” (Assem. Floor, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 241 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as amended July 9, 1985, pp. 1-2.)

F14: The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Gov. Code § 56000), specifies that procedures for a dissolution of a special district may be commenced by the district, by petition of voters or by LAFCo. In the case of a dissolution initiated by LAFCo, Section 57113 requires LAFCO to submit a dissolution measure to the voters if LAFCo receives a petition prior to the conclusion of the protest hearing signed by at least 10% of the landowners or voters in the affected territory. If a district initiates dissolution procedures for itself, LAFCo must still submit the dissolution to the voters if a petition of protest is submitted, signed by at least 25% of the landowners or voters in the affected territory. (California Government Code Section 57081).

F15: Prior to Proposition 13, a special district that had reduced costs or decided to dissolve would decrease or eliminate its property tax. In the post-Proposition 13 environment, if an ESD is dissolved, property tax rates for district residents are not decreased. Instead, the tax revenue from that district is then reallocated to other agencies serving the area previously served by the dissolved agency. Because the property taxes are not reduced, this can act as a disincentive for a district to dissolve, even if its primary role has ceased. 4

F16: In 2006, LAFCo documented a number of determinations regarding LTCWD in its Municipal Service Review (Appendix 1), including: a. “Water rebates benefiting Los Trancos customers of California Water Service Company detract from the District’s ability or a successor agency’s ability to fund other services it might be able to provide and from the ability to pay down existing debt.” b. “Use of property tax to provide rebates conflicts with the legislature’s intended use of property tax and competes with other potential uses for property tax to fund services that might more equitably benefit the broader community.” c. “Opportunities exist to partner with the Town of Portola Valley, Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, and the Woodside Fire Protection District in pursuing goals of land stewardship and these agencies also have the potential to respond to other identified needs such as emergency preparedness and passive recreation.”2 d. “A district that no longer delivers the service for which it was formed and collects property tax that is no longer needed to fund services should consider dissolution.” e. “The District is encouraged to actively pursue transfer of land with potential successor agencies.” f. “Continued existence of the district should include consideration of a sunset date for use of property tax as rebates in order to fund necessary services the district is authorized to provide.” Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Gov. Code § 56000)

R4: California State Revenue and Tax Code Section 99.02

R5: Water and Waste Disposal Enterprise Special District Property Taxes; Analysis of the 2008 – 2009 Budget Bill, California Legislative Analyst’s Office (Appendix 2)

R6: Opinion from the State Attorney General, #05-809, published February 9, 2006

R7: Guide to Special District Laws and Related Codes; California Special Districts Association, 2007

R8: Los Trancos County Water District Board Meeting Minutes, 2006 – 2008 8

November 04, 2008 — Appointment Vs Election:

8 pages 6 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors (Board) cites cost as the main reason to make an appointment rather than hold an election. During Board of Supervisor discussions of how to fill the vacancy, an estimated $1.6 million cost to San Mateo County (County) of an election was cited as the main reason for not holding an election. County elections costs are funded through the San Mateo County general fund. The Grand Jury also learned that: a. The costs of a countywide mail-only election, compared to a conventional election, are reduced by approximately 30%. b. Half the registered voters in the State and 49% of the registered voters in San Mateo County vote permanently by mail. c. State law sets forth what can be included in the County Charter. It is not clear whether it is possible to set forth in the County Charter a provision that would authorize the Board to use a mail ballot election for the filling of vacancies on the Board. 3

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: Elections shall be called to fill a vacated supervisorial seat if the term remaining is one year or more.

R3: When filling supervisorial vacancies by special election, mail-only ballots are allowed. 6

F2: Incumbents are almost always re-elected. According to a study funded by several large private philanthropic organizations, 92% of all state legislative incumbents in the 2006 election cycle were reelected.1 This pattern holds true for the Board. a. Since 1980, incumbents seeking reelection have been reelected 100 percent of the time.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: Elections shall be called to fill a vacated supervisorial seat if the term remaining is one year or more.

R2: If the term for the vacated seat is less than one year, a provisional appointment should be made in which the appointee is prohibited from running for the seat to which s/he was appointed during the next election cycle.

F3: Individuals who fill vacancies have the possibility of extended term limits. a. Individuals who fill vacancies, whether by appointment or special election, can serve longer than supervisors who do not fill vacancies. b. According to the County Charter Article II, Section 202, term limits only apply to three four-year full terms, or 12 years total. Individuals who fill vacated seats can serve three full terms in addition to the time the individual is filling a vacated seat. c. In the case of the current Board, two sitting members, one elected in a special election and one appointed, will serve more than 12 years. Several of the organizations that supported an election to fill the vacated seat discussed the power of incumbency. For example, in its press release, the San Mateo County Democrat Central Committee wrote: “The person who is elected or appointed to fill Jerry Hill’s seat will likely remain on the Board until he or she is termed out in 2022.” In other words, that person may legally serve in the office fourteen years.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: Elections shall be called to fill a vacated supervisorial seat if the term remaining is one year or more.

F4: The term “appointed incumbent” must be used on the ballot but not on the campaign statements. a. According to state election law, the appointed Supervisor must use the words “appointed incumbent” on the ballot. b. This requirement does not apply to the candidate statement or election literature that is available to voters to learn about the candidates. For example: one Supervisor, appointed in 2000, who first campaigned for election in 2002, was able to describe herself on her candidate statement as a “San Mateo County Supervisor,” whereas on the ballot she was mandated, under state law, to use the term “appointed incumbent.” 1 Jordon, Scott, “Advantage, Incumbent” May 7, 2008: supported by Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust, Rockefeller Brothers Fund https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/15819/MoneyIncumbency2006_Final.pdf?sequence=1 4

F5: Two applicants for the Board seat offered to be provisional appointees. Two of the candidates who sought to fill the vacated seat on the Board of Supervisors in December 2008, offered to be “placeholders” who would fill out the term, but would not run for the seat in 2010, thus, neutralizing the power of incumbency. a. Placeholder or “provisional” appointees do not run for the seat to which they are appointed in the next available election, but they may run for that seat thereafter and for any other office at any time. b. It is questionable whether this offer by the applicants, if accepted by the Board, would have been enforceable because the County Charter does not provide for provisional appointments.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: The County Charter can be, and has frequently been, changed. State law requires that amendments to the County Charter be approved by the voters in the form of a ballot measure. There are two ways for a measure to be placed upon the ballot: a. The Board of Supervisors may place a measure on the ballot. b. Citizens may place a measure on the ballot if they collect signatures equal to or more than 10% of the voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election. The San Mateo County Charter has been fully revised by the electorate twice since it was first adopted in 1932. The electorate has amended the County Charter 20 times since 1932 and was last amended in 2004. The County has in place an on-going charter-review process. According to Section 801 of the Charter, a supervisor-appointed County Charter Review Committee meets every eight years to: “review the Charter and, after public hearings, make appropriate

11 pages 8 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: Camp Glenwood (Glenwood) has had few infrastructure improvements since it opened in 1964, forty-five years ago.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Continue to keep Camp Glenwood (Glenwood) as an unfenced honor camp.

F2: Prior to August 2008, the Sheriff’s Office had responded to approximately one walk- away per month from Glenwood.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Evaluate the capital improvement plan to consider allocating funds to repair critical areas to the facility to avoid potential catastrophic failures, which may result in long-term costly repairs. 4

F3: There has only been one walk-away from Glenwood since August 2008, when Glenwood’s new policies and procedures were developed and implemented. All other walk-aways, which were reported by the media, have been from San Francisco’s Log Cabin Ranch juvenile facility, not Glenwood. Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that Camp Glenwood should not be fenced. The Grand Jury also concludes that:

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Maintain a staff ratio of two counselors to fifteen juveniles.

F4: The review process, utilized by Probation in partnership with the Court, maximizes a youth’s chance for community integration and minimizes recidivism.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Direct the County Manager to work with the San Mateo County Probation Department (Probation) to budget and allocate funds for a full-time mental health professional at Glenwood.

F5: The increased ratio of two counselors to fifteen juveniles has reduced the number of walk-aways.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Work with the Chief Probation Officer to ensure that the “30-Day Assessment Plan” is followed. Provide a semi-annual report that includes audit assessment as to the appropriate youth who are in the camp to the Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Commission.

F6: A significant number of juveniles have a host of mental, social, and emotional disorders. An allocation of a full-time mental health professional for forty hours per week would allow for additional juveniles to receive needed counseling.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Work with the Chief Probation Officer and the San Mateo County Sheriff‘s Office, on an as-needed basis, to ensure that Probation’s policies and procedures and security assessments are preventing as many walk-aways as possible.

F7: The San Mateo County Sheriff‘s Office’s community alert system has been effective, although it is still difficult to ascertain which walk-aways are from Glenwood and which are from San Francisco County’s Log Cabin Ranch juvenile facility.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Work with the Chief Probation Officer to develop an objective measure of success by tracking the juveniles after leaving Glenwood to see whether they have been incarcerated by the County or anywhere else in the United States.

F8: Continue to work with the Chief Probation Officer to evaluate other models to successfully operate honor camps. Response: Agree. This recommendation has been implemented. In the past year, staff toured Sonoma’s boys camp and Santa Clara County’s James Ranch. The Sonoma camp puts a heavy emphasis on vocational programming and rehabilitation. James Ranch has implemented the Missouri Model of low staff-youth ratios and a home-like environment. Probation staff plans to continue visits to other best-practice sites. Finally, this

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Continue to work with the Chief Probation Officer to evaluate other models to successfully operate honor camps. GREG MUNKS COUNTY OF SAN MATEO SHERIFF Office of the Sheriff CARLOS G. BOLANOS UNDERSHERIFF TRISHA L. SANCHEZ ASSISTANT SHERIFF 400 COUNTY CENTER (cid:224) REDWOOD CITY (cid:224) CALIFORNIA 94063-1662 (cid:224) TELEPHONE (650) 599-1664 (cid:224) www.smcsheriff.com July 14, 2009 Honorable George A. Miram Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice and Records 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, ca 94063-1655 Re: Grand Jury: Camp Glenwood Should Remain An Honor Camp Report Judge Miram, The Sheriff’s Office appreciates the 2008-2009 Grand Jury’s careful study of the issue concerning “Should Camp Glenwood remain an unfenced honor camp in light of 36 walk-aways that have occurred since 2006?” Our responses to both the conclusions and recommendations pertaining to our agency are as follows; Conclusions: 7) The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office community alert system has been effective, although it is still difficult to ascertain which walk-aways are from Glenwood and which are from the San Francisco County’s Log Cabin Ranch juvenile facility. Response: The respondent agrees with the conclusion. The Sheriff’s Office community alert system was established to enhance the communication abilities between both law enforcement agencies and the public with the dissemination of important community awareness information. Protocols have been established to notify the public of any walk-aways or escapees from any adult or juvenile facility operating in San Mateo County using our SMC Alert System (San Mateo County Alerts System) and/or our TENS System (Telephone Emergency Notification System). Our responding Patrol units coordinate with the local facility representative reporting the incident in order to gather accurate information and make the appropriate alert notifications to the public. We will continue with those efforts. Recommendations: 6) Work with the Chief Probation Officer and the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, on an as-needed basis, to ensure that Probation’s polices and procedures and security assessments are preventing as many walk-aways as possible. Response: The respondent agrees with the conclusion. The Sheriff’s Office enjoys a professional and collaborative working relationship with the San Mateo County Probation Department. Our County-wide Security Unit, Patrol Bureau, and Office of Emergency Services will continue to work with the new Chief Probation Officer and their staff as requested, in reviewing polices, procedures and security assessments related to their juvenile facilities. In conclusion, the Sheriff’s Office appreciates the work of the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury and we look forward to working with our criminal justice partners in providing professional law enforcement services to those we serve in San Mateo County. Sincerely, Greg Munks Sheriff 2 of 2 Camp Glenwood Should Remain an Honor Camp

10 pages 7 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: South Bayside Waste Management Authority and Allied Waste a. SBWMA is a joint powers authority with twelve member agencies (the cities of Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos and San Mateo, the towns of Atherton and Hillsborough, the County of San Mateo, and the West Bay Sanitary District) formed to provide cost effective waste reduction, recycling, and solid waste programs to member agencies through franchised services and other recyclers. b. Currently, Allied Waste is the waste management service franchised by SBWMA to collect waste for member cities. c. According to state law, recyclables placed by the curbside can only be collected by agents duly authorized by cities and counties. Allied Waste is such an agent. d. All revenues received by Allied Waste from the recyclables are transferred to SBWMA. e. SBWMA ultimately distributes this revenue back to its members to offset garbage rates. f. Neither Allied Waste nor SBWMA are affected financially, either positively or negatively, when pilfering occurs. g. Neither Allied Waste nor SBWMA have taken action to reduce curbside pilfering. h. SBWMA member rates are based on an expected share of revenue from recyclables and fees. If the revenue is reduced sufficiently, individual SBWMA members could be forced to increase fees to cover the revenue shortfall. The South Bay Waste Management Association is a Joint Powers Authority. A Joint Powers Authority is an institution in which two or more public entities or governments can operate collectively. See Finding 1a. p.2. of this report for a full description of SBWMA. 2 i. Allied Waste claims that the amount of recyclables collected has been reduced by about 25% over the last four years. j. Revenues from recyclables have, nevertheless, increased because resale prices for recyclable materials have dramatically increased.2

F2: Coastside Scavenger a. Coastside Scavenger, a privately owned waste management service, is the duly authorized agent to collect waste in Pacifica. Coastside Scavenger differs from Allied Waste and SBWMA in the way it operates with regard to pilfering. i. Coastside Scavenger depends, in part, on the sale of recyclables for its revenues, and believes it is being negatively impacted by curbside pilfering. ii. Coastside Scavenger has reported incidents of pilfering to the police.

F3: Reduction of Recyclables Coastside Scavenger and Allied Waste were unable to quantify the percentage of the reduction in collected recyclables that is due to pilfering. Aside from pilfering, individuals, non-profits and businesses divert a portion of recyclables from the waste stream by selling directly to independent buy-back agents, who are agents that purchase materials directly from the general public.

F4: Curbside Pilfering in Pacifica and Menlo Park a. Pacifica, like most cities in San Mateo County, does not have a special ordinance against curbside pilfering. However, Pacifica Police consider pilfering to be theft. b. Four reports of pilfering were received by the Pacifica Police in one month, from July 29 to August 29, 2008, with five suspects involved. Three of those four reports came from Coastside Scavenger. Two of the suspects were issued misdemeanor citations. One was arrested and booked for an outstanding warrant on other charges, as well as, the pilfering charge. The case involving two suspects was referred to the San Mateo County District Attorney for prosecution. c. Menlo Park, which is a member of SBWMA, has two ordinances that pertain to pilfering: i. Municipal Code 7.04.040 gives the right to collect garbage exclusively to those having a contract with the City. ii. Municipal Code 7.04.080 states that it is unlawful and an infraction for any person not having a contract to take curbside garbage or recyclables. 2 http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080920/news_1n20scavenge.html 3 d. Menlo Park issues citations to pilferers, as is done with parking tickets, without reporting the crime as a theft to the San Mateo District Attorney. e. The Menlo Park Police believe that issuing citations has been effective, but a local neighborhood-group posting disagrees. The posting, in part, reads: “Although this is technically illegal activity, asking police to do something about this is futile.” (Attachment 2) f. From June to September 2008, two cases of pilfering were reported in Menlo Park.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Adopting an ordinance against pilfering which: i. Allows police to issue a citation, as is done with parking violations, without reporting the incident to the San Mateo County District Attorney as a theft. ii. Includes effective financial consequences to pilferers, remembering that pilfering is a continuous enterprise. 5 iii. Does not preclude the police, at their discretion, from forwarding pilfering cases to the District Attorney.

F5: Mitigation a. Two upcoming changes may affect curbside pilfering: i. A new California law, AB 1778, will go into effect on January 1, 2009, and is designed to “deter the theft of recyclables by requiring recyclers to obtain identifying information of individuals who bring in more than $50 worth of CRV recyclables and newspapers. It also requires that payments of $50 or more be made by check.” (Attachment 4) ii. Single stream recyclable collection is due to be implemented in January 2011 by SBWMA and Coastside Scavenger. This collection process may make pilfering more difficult because all recyclables will be co-mingled and collected in one large, lidded bin. b. Agencies interviewed suggested the following ideas for curtailing curbside pilfering. i. A model anti-pilfering ordinance allowing pilferers to be cited and fined should be created and passed by all the cities and the County. Police would then have the flexibility to cite violators under either the new uniform ordinance or existing theft criminal codes. ii. The imposed fines should be large enough to act as a deterrent. iii. A public education campaign is needed to help residents understand the possible relationship of their garbage bills to pilfering and to encourage residents to report curbside pilfering to the police.

F6: Curbside pilfering elsewhere: The Grand Jury learned from newspaper articles and police websites that in other cities in California and the United States, curbside pilfering is widely reported as a problem. (Attachment 3) 4 Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

F7: The problem of curbside pilfering is not a public-safety threat but does concern residents, as evidenced by emails in Attachments 1 and 2.

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Educating residents about the causal relationship of pilfering to garbage collection rates.

R3: Negotiating contracts with waste management companies that encourage and reward their active participation in the reduction in curbside pilfering.

R4: Requesting that existing waste management companies include in the mailings it sends to customers the following information: i. Curbside pilfering of recyclables is illegal. ii. If seen, curbside pilfering should be reported to the police. No response is required to this report. Attachment 1 From: Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:00 AM To: John Boyle Cc: city.council@menlopark.org Subject: Curbside recycling theft John, I bring this issue to you attention as a member of the Menlo Park City Council. Last night after I my garbage, green waste and recycling was moved to the curbside I noticed someone rummaging through the recycling. This individual was taking all the aluminum cans. I confronted him and told him to return the cans. He did so then moved down the street, San Mateo Drive. Thinking that there was an ordinance that criminalized this kind of behavior, I called the MP Police and made a report. The dispatcher said that they would send personnel and assumed this was the end of the issue. Later that evening (after dark) I returned to the curb and found that the individual must have returned because all of the aluminum cans, which had been replaced, were now gone. Later when my wife returned I recounted the evening's event and her reaction gave me a different perspective. Her concern was not for the material that was taken, but was a concern over neighborhood safety and possibly having these individuals in our backyard (as commodity prices continue to increase). My sensitivity to these kind of thefts has increased this last year as a result of a project that I am working on in San Leandro (the conversion of a dormant Kelloggs factory) and the weekly thefts of copper electrical components (totaling $80K or better). I called Chad Wilson, general manager at Allied Waste, and had a lengthy discussion. He is well aware of the problem and said that their return on recycling has an impact on customer rates, greater theft, and higher rates. I asked him if procedures could be modified on recycling pick-ups so that it would not be necessary to put recycling at curbside the evening before pick-up (perhaps a later pick-up schedule). He seemed interested and said that he would bring the matter to the attention of management. He added that many communities do not have ordinances that make the unauthorized removal or theft of recycling a crime. In a brief call to the police dispatcher this morning I found out the Menlo Park is one of those communities. The dispatcher added that she believed that this was because the San Mateo County District Attorney did not want to prosecute for recycling theft. I think that something needs to be done to make it more difficult to steal recycling (AW pick-up procedures), or some penalty or fine for those caught taking this material. I think that you are aware of my aversion to needless municipal ordinances, but this is an issue that I think needs to be looked at not just because of the theft issue (and economic impact on AW rates) but because it brings a element into the neighborhood that does not belong there. Attachment 2 WillowsNeighborhoodWatch@yahoogroups.com, Thu Oct 9, 2008 8:29 pm Neighbors, Due to the sharp increase in people coming through the neighborhood collecting recyclables, I would like to make a request of those who are able to *please put out your recyclables in the morning, rather than at night*. Last night saw FOUR separate crews come through (that's right - 4) our neighborhood - it truly was ridiculous. The frequency has been on a steady rise for a couple months now. Although this is technically illegal activity, asking police to do something about this is futile. BUT, if the supply goes down, surely the visitors will eventually move on. And at a time when we already have people treating the Willows as their #1 destination for robberies, thefts, shootings, etc. surely we do not need more unwanted visitors. Please help if you can - *put out your recyclables in the morning*. It may be a small thing, but don't you think we need all the help we can get to stop the constant flow of theft in the neighborhood? Attachment 3 Prevent Theft of Recyclables (police page), http://www.citymb.info/Index.aspx?page=1555 Jail and Fines Proposed for Theft of Recyclables, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/25recyclewe.html?fta=y Theft of Recyclables an Ongoing Problem http://www.cityofnapa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=602&Itemid =3 Scavenging – and theft of recyclables – on rise, http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080920/news_1n20scavenge.html Theft of Curbside Recyclables Increasing, http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/37676 San Francisco Safe, Paragraph 4, http://www.sfsafe.org/3n_news.html Legislation to Tackle Curbside Recycling and Newspaper Theft Clears Senate Floor, http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/72089 8 Assembly Bill 1778 Press Release http://aan.org/news/california_bill_to_fight_newspaper_theft_passes_senate/Aan/ViewAr ticle?oid=500326 Attachment 4 http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/10702/ Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Legislation Combating Metal Theft In response to the increasing rate of metal theft throughout California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a package of bills providing law enforcement with new tools to combat metal thieves stealing scrap metals from fire hydrants, utilities, manhole covers, agricultural equipment, guardrails and much more. "Not only are these crimes destroying property and causing millions of dollars in damages, they are endangering lives." Governor Schwarzenegger said. "We must put a stop to these growing crimes and this package of bills will provide law enforcement with the tools they need to put these thieves behind bars." The market value of both copper and aluminum significantly increased from 2004 to 2005, driving a sharp increase in incidents of metal theft in California. According to the California Farming Bureau, over $6 million worth of metal was reported stolen throughout the Central Valley in 2006 alone. Metal theft has created serious impacts in all parts of the state: Central Valley farmers have lost crops due to irrigation pumps being stripped of wiring, a toxic chemical spill in San Pablo Bay was the result of a $10 brass valve being stolen from a storage tank and a home burnt to the ground in the city of Hesperia because the fire department was not able to connect to the fire hydrant to put out the fire. To provide law enforcement with better tools to investigate and prosecute metal theft, the Governor signed the following bills: • AB 844 by Assembly member Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto) puts an end to a pattern of quick cash for metal thieves by requiring recyclers to hold payment for three days, check a photo ID and take a thumbprint of anyone selling scrap metals. It also requires anyone convicted of metal theft to pay restitution for the materials stolen and for any collateral damage caused during the theft. • SB 691 by Senator Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) requires recyclers to take thumbprints of individuals selling copper, copper alloys, aluminum and stainless steal. Sellers must also show a government ID and proof of their current address. Recyclers who break the law face suspension or revocation of their business license and increased fines and jail time. • AB 1859 by Assembly member Anthony Adams (R-Hesperia) discourages the theft of fire hydrant fittings and fire department connections by creating a fine of not more than $3,000 for any person who knowingly receives any part of a fire hydrant, including bronze or brass fittings and parts. 9 • SB 447 by Senator Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) assists local law enforcement officials in quickly investigating stolen metal and apprehending thieves by requiring scrap metal dealers and recyclers to report what materials are being scraped at their facilities and by whom on a daily basis. These rules already apply to pawn shop dealers. The Governor also signed AB 1778 by Assembly member Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) to deter the theft of recyclables by requiring recyclers to obtain identifying information of individuals who bring in more than $50 worth of CRV recyclables and newspapers. It also requires that payments of $50 or more be made by check. 10

8 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: San Mateo Medical Center (Medical Center) staff is correctly using the Medication Administration Check (MAK) system, and there appears to be no identified abuse or inappropriate use of the system.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Improve data used to measure the Medication Administration Check (MAK) system performance by creating bench marks and a baseline to assess the safety and efficiencies when dispensing medication to patients at the Medical Center.

F2: The Medical Center’s goal is to improve the accuracy of patient identification, ensure the effectiveness of communication among caregivers, ensure the safety of administering medications, and encourage the patients’ active involvement in their own health care.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Utilize MAK data to make decisions and suggestions for improvement of the current MAK module, and development of future software modules.

F3: Clinicians contributed to the success of the MAK implementation by being involved in the pre-implementation planning, developing, and training, and by demonstrating their competency prior to using the MAK system. Operational Findings:

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Submit regular reports that evaluate the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the MAK system and recommend areas for system improvement to the Medical Center Board of Directors.

F4: The clinician can stop the medication administration process if there is an error in the prescription, dosage, or bar code reconciliation. They then verify, reconcile, and/or override the system, and report the incident manually.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Contact other hospitals who use MAK and share ideas contributing to successful data gathering and reporting processes.

F5: Patients are informed by staff about the checks and balances performed before their medication is administered. Assessment and Evaluation Findings:

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Evaluate the purchase of a Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) module which allows physicians to coordinate with the MAK software module. San Mateo Medical Center’s Medication Administration Check System

Additional documents

Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.

County of San Mateo Hall of Justice2 pp.