San Mateo County 2009-2010 - California Grand Jury Reports

June 30, 2010 — Issue Is San Mateo County effectively managing its vehicle fleet and employee vehicle reimbursement

27 pages 8 findings 9 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: Assigned Fleet Vehicles a. San Mateo County department managers do not have an effective system to monitor fleet vehicle use or mileage reimbursement. Department managers make decisions on use and assignment of vehicles without any documentation or surveys to support their conclusions. b. There is no process in place to track or analyze vehicle data or justify vehicle assignments, or having 53 vehicles on-call on a daily basis. c. Vehicles are assigned to departments and individuals within departments without provisions for other departments or individuals to use these vehicles. d. County vehicle maintenance costs have increased dramatically from $685 in 2004 to $1,452 in 201010. e. The County is currently spending $1.7 million more per year on assigned fleet vehicles than it would if all 556 assigned vehicle users were driving their own cars for County business and being reimbursed at the 2009 IRS rate of $.55 per mile. f. Current motor pool vehicles are ready available; numerous fleet tracking and reservation technologies have been found by government agencies to significantly increase motor pool utilization.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Annually survey the vehicle fleet including assessing vehicle mileage, assignments, locations, and needs of the County. Recommend to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors which vehicles (assigned to individuals, departments, and the motor pool) should be reassigned or sold.

F2: Vehicle Mileage Reimbursement a. For non-motor pool, it is less expensive for the County to reimburse an employee at $.55 per mile (2009 rate) to use his/her own vehicle on County business than to supply the employee with a County owned vehicle. It should be noted that the County has policies in place to encourage the use of public transportation by County employees. b. Department managers have no system in place to verify employees’ mileage and usage of their personal vehicles on County business. c. Department managers depend upon employees to use an “honor system” in recording their vehicle mileage and usage.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Annually survey the assignments of overnight vehicles to determine if the assignments are in the best financial interest of the County.

F3: Vehicle Allowance a. The Board of Supervisors sets the vehicle allowance amounts and the County Manager determines which employees, in addition to himself and the Board of Supervisors, receive vehicle allowances. b. Vehicle allowances in San Mateo County are higher than in other nearby counties and are provided to a broader range of County employees. 10 http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/vgn/images/portal/cit_609/49/57/133796582fleet_op_review.pdf 7 c. If an employee receives a vehicle allowance within the time period used for calculating his/her pension, it is included in the retirement calculation for his/her pension.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Determine a method of verifying actual mileage used by employees driving their personal vehicles on County business for vehicle reimbursement.

F4: Overnight Vehicles a. There is a cost to the County in allowing its employees to drive County vehicles home overnight. b. The Sheriff’s Office has reduced the number of employees with overnight vehicle approvals from 64 to 36. This reduction is estimated by the Sheriff’s Office to save $150,000 per year. c. The County Manager has final approval as to which employees are assigned overnight vehicles based on established criteria.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Establish a mechanism to verify insurance coverage of County employees driving personal vehicles for County business.

F5: Risk Management a. The County has no system in place to ensure that employees driving their personal vehicles on County business have car insurance. b. The County requires employees to carry minimum car insurance as per California law. c. According to a County official, raising the minimum level of employee car insurance could discourage some employees from driving their own vehicles on County business. d. The use of overnight vehicles increases County liability. e. The County holds in a self-insurance reserve $683 per vehicle per year. This is included in the vehicle mileage costs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Include in the San Mateo County Driving Policy verification that all employees who drive their personal vehicles on County business carry as a minimum the following: $25,000/$50,000 per accident injury and $5,000 per accident for property damages coverage. For their own protection, however, employees should be encouraged to obtain minimum insurance coverage of at least $100,000/$300,000/$50,000.

F6: Policies and Procedures a. San Mateo County’s Driving Policy lacks several provisions that may reduce County costs: i. Setting limits on the mileage an employee may live from his/her duty station while driving an overnight vehicle. ii. Requiring that all unattended vehicles be locked. iii. Prohibiting employees from leaving compromising information (to both California residents and County departments), both written and electronic, in unattended vehicles. iv. Prohibiting passengers in County vehicles unless they are being transported for County business CONCLUSIONS The 2009-2010 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Confirm that the County Driving Policy that requires employees to keep daily mileage and destination logs is being followed. Instruct department heads on how to maintain effective oversight on vehicle mileage and use.

F7: Update the County Driving Policy: a. Set limits on the mileage an employee may live from his/her duty station while driving an overnight vehicle. b. Require that all unattended vehicles be locked. c. Prohibit employees from leaving compromising information (to both California residents and County departments) both written and electronic in unattended vehicles. d. Prohibit passengers in County vehicles unless they are being transported for County business.

Page 10

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Update the County Driving Policy: a. Set limits on the mileage an employee may live from his/her duty station while driving an overnight vehicle. b. Require that all unattended vehicles be locked. c. Prohibit employees from leaving compromising information (to both California residents and County departments) both written and electronic in unattended vehicles. d. Prohibit passengers in County vehicles unless they are being transported for County business.

F8: Eliminate assigning vehicles to departments (except patrol vehicles and vehicles with special equipment) or individuals and transfer these vehicles to the motor pool. Ensure that motor pool locations are optimally placed. 10 9. Consider utilizing fleet management software. Furthermore, the 2009-2010 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: 1. Set the bi-weekly amount of the present car allowances to the average of other four Bay Area counties.

Page 10

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Eliminate assigning vehicles to departments (except patrol vehicles and vehicles with special equipment) or individuals and transfer these vehicles to the motor pool. Ensure that motor pool locations are optimally placed. 10

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R9: Consider utilizing fleet management software. Furthermore, the 2009-2010 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:

June 30, 2010 — The Cost of Special Education in San Mateo County School Districts Issue | Background | Findings | Conclusions |

58 pages 6 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: The Federal government, as legislated, agreed to cover 40% of the cost of Special Education services. The actual reimbursement to each school district is between 15%- 20%. The 20% reimbursement rate was achieved in the 2009-2010 school year when federal stimulus funds earmarked for special education were distributed to school districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: – The Board of Trustees of Millbrae Elementary, Hillsborough City Elementary, Burlingame Elementary, San Mateo-Foster City Elementary, Belmont- Redwood Shores Elementary, Las Lomitas Elementary, Menlo Park City Elementary, San Carlos Elementary, Redwood City Elementary, Portola Valley Elementary, Woodside Elementary, Ravenswood City, Cabrillo Unified, La Honda-Pescadero Unified School Districts, Jefferson Union, San Mateo Union and Sequoia Union High School Districts join or start a consortium to leverage policies and procedures that result in a more consistent application of special education eligibility criteria as shown by the North County Consortium that could result in the reduction in general fund revenue support for special education programs, without reducing the quality of services. The Jefferson Union High School District will continue to explore ways in which to collaborate with other districts to serve Special Needs students. It should be noted, however, that it is more difficult for a high school district to collaborate with the elementary consortia because they do not serve high school age students. The Honorable Clifford V. Cretan August 4, 2010

F2: San Mateo County schools have an Average Daily Attendance of approximately 86,000 students of which 12% are in Special Education. The Consortium percentage of special education is slightly lower at 11.5%. For the four North County Consortium elementary school districts (Bayshore, Brisbane, Jefferson, and Pacifica) that have participated in the Consortium since its founding in 2006, the general fund contribution average is 7.7% compared to the average for the non-Consortium elementary school districts at 11.8%. (Appendix B, San Mateo County SELPA, General fund Contributions to Special Education Services, 3/25/2010)

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: – The San Mateo County Office of Education provide timely information to the general public through the Special Education Local Plan Area on the number of students in special education by program and service, the total costs of the service and the general fund contribution to special education. The San Mateo County Office of Education Special Education Local Plan Area will respond to this recommendation.

F3: Some districts are supplementing a high proportion of their Special Education fund with general funds (Appendix B).

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: – The San Mateo County Office of Education and the School Districts of San Mateo County vigorously lobby local members of Congress to sponsor legislation to fully fund the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA) to the 40% promised for Special Education programs and services and demand that the State does not abdicate its responsibility to fund special education. The Jefferson Union High School District will continue to work with various groups (California School Boards Association, etc.) who are able to advocate on behalf of school districts so that the Federal Government is compelled to provide the funding as originally promised under IDEA. The District will continue to lobby state representatives about the State’s responsibility to fund education and special education adequately. The Jefferson Union High School District Board of Trustees reviewed these responses during their regular meeting of August 3, 2010. Sincerely, Michael J. Crilly Michael J. Crilly Superintendent LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PO Box 189 •••• 360 Butano Cut Off, Pescadero, CA 94060 650-879-0286 •••• FAX 650-879-0816 Amy Wooliever, Superintendent October 1, 2010 Honorable Clifford V. Cretan Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Re: Grand Jury Report on the Cost of Special Education in San Mateo County School Districts Dear Judge Cretan, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the findings of the Grand Jury report regarding the cost of Special Education in San Mateo County. Following are the responses from the district regarding the findings, conclusions and recommendations from this Grand Jury Report:

F4: The County Office of Education educates the most severely disabled students because these students need teachers with advanced credentials, modified facilities and specialized equipment.

F5: The North County Consortium has substantially reduced the number of placements in county operated programs for students with less severe disabilities at a minimum savings of $14,000 per Special Education student. The districts forming the Consortium banded together and offered their own Special Education programs with reduced personnel and overhead costs.

F6: The SELPA provides the following: a. Individual Education Plan (IEP) Training of Trainers Modules. The training is focused on applying the eligibility criteria consistently and writing compliant IEP’s that provide educational benefit. b. Ongoing meetings with the San Mateo County Behavioral Health Division of the County Health Department and The Golden Gate Regional Center to foster interagency collaboration. The meetings with the Regional Center have improved the transition from Early Start to preschool so that Regional Center caseworkers are not demanding that Early Start services continue when the child transitions to preschool, which is very costly. c. A redesign of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process. Each district will designate three parents who will be trained as resource parents. They will be trained in effective communication skills, collaboration, and the IEP process so that they can help other parents new to the system. The SELPA also offers trained facilitators to mediate at a difficult IEP. 4 d. Analysis of the results of the recent Autism Survey to develop trainings for best practices in the delivery of services to students with autism. e. Meetings with NPA/ABA providers to discuss accountability issues concerning billing, fading (the reduction of services over time), and professional conduct of in-home ABA providers. The SELPA is looking at hiring ABA providers through the COE or a district so that there is more control over the services. f. The completion of guidelines on the use of Special Circumstance Instructional Assistance (SCIA) aides. These guidelines are intended to provide districts with a step-by-step process on how to determine if a student needs an SCIA. There is also a fading of services process to ensure that the SCIA does not prevent the student from becoming independent. Training on the SCIA Guidelines will be conducted in the fall of 2010. g. A master contract with Non Public Schools (NPS), and Non Public Agency providers (NPA) that sets uniform rates for all school districts h. Guidance in the plan to establish a legal fund from the SELPA Contingency Fund to defend against high profile and precedent setting special education legal cases. A legal costs survey indicated that districts tend to settle in mediation rather than going to a due process fair hearing before an administrative law judge. Judges make rulings that are non-binding and can be appealed to a federal court. Sometimes, it is less expensive for a school district to settle than to take the risk to go to due process. For example, if a school district looses in due process they become liable for the legal expenses incurred by the parent. With the backing of the proposed Legal Costs Pool, a district would have some financial support to go forward with a case that they think might have a precedent setting value for the other districts in the SELPA. Conclusions The 2009-2010 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R09-10: Total District Support for SPED as Percentage of Districts General Fund Adopted Special Total Adopted Budget Budget Education (B/A) BAYSHORE 3,490,241.00 195,706.00 5.61% BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES 28,266,461.00 5,782,264.00 20.46% BRISBANE 7,140,398.00 331,746.00 4.65% CABRILLO 27,961,381.00 2,309,829.00 8.26% BURLINGAME 19,693,852.92 2,608,820.00 13.25% HILLSBOROUGH 20,072,583.00 1,943,055.00 9.68% JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY 45,916,831.92 4,647,957.36 10.12% LAS LOMITAS 16,976,434.00 2,329,148.00 13.72% MENLO PARK 28,729,131.00 2,882,334.00 10.03% MILLBRAE 16,517,758.00 1,434,928.00 8.69% PACIFICA 22,760,658.05 2,370,614.63 10.42% PORTOLA VALLEY 10,996,025.00 205,705.00 1.87% RAVENSWOOD 37,215,865.00 5,772,699.00 15.51% REDWOOD CITY 78,433,847.00 6,737,423.00 8.59% SAN BRUNO PARK 20,353,294.64 2,574,059.00 12.65% SAN CARLOS 23,258,044.00 3,358,135.00 14.44% SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY 87,907,422.55 10,763,227.96 12.24% WOODSIDE 7,410,346.00 212,355.00 2.87% JEFFERSON UNION 47,316,044.00 1,941,173.00 4.10% SAN MATEO UNION 94,254,704.75 7,705,204.82 8.17% SEQUOIA UNION 100,264,310.00 6,976,317.00 6.96% LA HONDA-PESCADERO 4,162,783.00 390,164.00 9.37% SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 76,315,993.50 6,226,555.00 8.16% STANFORD NEW SCHOOL 7,414,830.00 107,842.00 1.45% SUMMIT PREPARATORY 3,524,658.87 0.00 0.00% Source Data: Column A 2009-10 Adopted Budget; Column B SEMB 09-10 Budget (Special Ed MOE 2009-10) 8

34 pages 22 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 22 findings

F1: Consolidations were enabled by the implementation of the paramedic program which required boundary drop (closest fire engine responds regardless of the jurisdiction) and a single communication system for all San Mateo County fire departments.

F2: Public safety (police and fire) expenditure is generally over half of the general fund in every community. 3

F3: The major cost of a fire department is the cost of personnel (salaries, health benefits and pension obligations). Table 3 below reports cost per capita as compared to the population supported. $825 180,000 $750 160,000 $675 140,000 $600 120,000 $525 $450 100,000 $375 80,000 $300 60,000 $225 40,000 $150 20,000 $75 $- - Wood- Belmont- So. San Redwood Colma side Millbrae Foster City Central Cty Coastside San Bruno San Carlos Francisco City San Mateo Menlo Pk No. County Population 5,600 16,000 21,536 30,429 39,553 40,000 42,000 54,500 60,552 76,000 92,482 94,650 155,000 Cost per Capita 372.40 769.02 215.18 263.08 404.24 132.49 187.04 255.77 272.00 219.21 206.15 282.68 148.00

F4: All fire departments have fixed overhead costs for administration and management regardless of the size of the department. Usually fire departments that support large populations are more cost effective because their fixed overhead is spread over a larger base. Table 35 above compares the cost per capita to the population supported. In general, the larger the population the lower the cost per capita. In addition to cost per capita, the cost to support a large geographical area should be considered when evaluating the cost efficiency of a department.

F5: The investigation revealed that labor contract obligations were negotiated when tax revenues were higher and are generally no longer sustainable in today’s economic environment.

F6: Consolidations were driven by the need to significantly reduce cost while maintaining the same level of service. The Grand Jury requested approved 2009-2010 budget information from all fire departments in the county. 4 atipaC reP tsoC noitalupoP San Mateo Fire Departments -Cost Per Capita & Population Table 3 Population Cost per Capita Trend -Cost/Capita

F7: North County Fire Authority, Central County Fire Department and the Belmont-San Carlos Fire Department each closed a fire station, reduced fire administration and the number of firefighters, over a period of three years.

F8: Central County Fire achieved annual savings of approximately $3.4 million by consolidation. Over a four year period, 14 full time equivalent positions were eliminated for an annual savings of $3.3 million. In addition, approximately $100,000 was saved from equipment and vehicle reductions. (See Appendix A for complete analysis.)

F9: There continues to be a redundancy of fire stations with five situations where stations are located within 1-mile of each other. These stations were placed by the local jurisdictions to fight fires within their city boundaries at a time when “boundary drop” did not exist and fire departments only responded to fires and other emergencies within their designated boundaries. Table 4 below was reproduced from the “San Mateo County Fire Agency Consolidation Threshold Analysis” report of March 2004. Table 4 Stations Located within a 1-mile Proximity of Each Other Station City Service Provider 1801 DE ANZA BLVD. SAN MATEO CITY OF SAN MATEO 20 TOWER RD SAN MATEO CDF – SAN MATEO 1500 MARINA CT. SAN MATEO CITY OF SAN MATEO 1040 EAST HILLSDALE BLVD. FOSTER CITY FOSTER CITY 200 EDGEWOOD RD. REDWOOD CITY CDF-SAN MATEO 1280 ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS SAN CARLOS SOUTH COUNTY JPA 4101 FAIR OAKS AVE MENLO PARK MENLO PARK FPD 1091 SECOND AVE. REDWOOD CITY REDWOOD CITY LAKE MERCED BLVD DALY CITY DALY CITY 50 REINER STREET COLMA COLMA FPD

F10: The 2004 average operating cost of a fire station in San Mateo County was approximately $2.0 million per year6. Belmont-San Carlos Fire Department reported that their average cost to run a fire station in 2009-2010 was approximately $3.2 million7. This is one indication of operating cost escalation.

F11: In spite of the significant savings resulting from consolidations in the Central and Belmont-San Carlos Fire Departments, the present condition of local agency budgets makes it difficult for fire agencies to sustain the current level of service. With the high cost of salaries, benefits and pension obligations, the San Carlos Fire budget has increased 19.5% over the last two fiscal years.

F12: Consolidation was made possible in the Belmont-San Carlos Fire Department, North County Fire Authority and the Central County Fire Department by the agreement of the city councils, city management, fire department management and firefighters union.

F13: The average workweek of a firefighter in the Coastside Fire Protection District and other Cal Fire managed stations is 72 hours (56 hours at regular pay and 16 hours of mandatory overtime at time and a half). The average work week of a firefighter in all other San Mateo County Fire Departments is 56 hours per week. Table 8 of the “The San Mateo County Threshold Analysis Report” of 2004, commissioned by the San Mateo County Fire Chief’s Association. San Carlos Staff Report of March 13, 2010, ” Overview of Initial Cal Fire Letter Proposal to Provide Fire Services in San Carlos” 5

F14: The difference in work hours enables Cal Fire to staff an engine with 7 firefighters per week compared to 9 firefighters per week where fire departments have a 56 hour work week.

F15: Cal Fire is a statewide agency with lower rates for salaries, workmen’s compensation insurance, health benefits and pension costs.

F16: The cost to run a Cal Fire station in the Coastside Fire Protection District is approximately $1.9 million annually. City of San Carlos estimates annual savings of between $1.2 million and $2.0 million if it contracted with Cal Fire.8

F17: As a result of consolidation, the Central County Fire Department and the Belmont-San Carlos Fire Department firefighters now each have single collective bargaining agreements. The North County Fire Department firefighters do not have a single collective bargaining agreement but maintain separate agreements with their respective cities.

F18: The fire departments of San Mateo County are first responders to all fire and medical emergencies.

F19: Approximately 60% of fire agency calls are for medical emergencies and are responded to by the closest available fire engine with three firefighters, one of whom is a paramedic.9

F20: The Advanced Life Support (ALS) JPA requires a paramedic on the responding fire engine and a paramedic on the responding ambulance.

F21: Except for South San Francisco, paramedic ambulance service is provided by AMR which is a private-for-profit ambulance service under contract to San Mateo County and administered through the ALS JPA.

F22: Through fees paid by patients and/or their insurers, AMR (ambulance provider), pays $3.7 million per year to the JPA, to help offset the fire department costs. From that $3.7 million, the JPA disperses $2.7 million per year to cities and fire districts who are members of the JPA. The remaining $1.0 million is retained by the JPA for administration and other costs. Conclusions: The 2009-2010 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

192 pages 9 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: Of sex offenses in San Mateo County 76% are committed against children.27

F2: When convicted sex offenders are not under consistent and intensive supervision (e.g., face-to-face contact with law enforcement, at both scheduled and random times.)28, they re-offend at the same (or higher) severity levels and frequency as compared with sex offenders not under such supervision.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Prioritize funding within the County Probation Department to keep sexual offender recidivism at a relatively low level by re-establishing a permanent, dedicated sexual offender unit. The 2009-2010 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends to the City Councils of San Mateo County that they work through the San Mateo County Police Chiefs’ Association to:

F3: The percentage of children taken for examination of possible sexual abuse and assault to the San Mateo Medical Center's Keller Center by Sheriff's deputies declined in 2008- 2009 by about 1/2 from 2004-2007 levels. Use of the Internet by Sexual Predators

F4: Consistent and intensive monitoring of convicted sex offenders when released from parole/probation is performed inconsistently throughout San Mateo County. Some city police departments have extensive procedures in place to monitor sex offenders while others perform the minimum required by law.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Reinstate the SAFE Task Force. Based upon other task force formulas, the Sheriff’s Office and the combined cities would each contribute 50%.

F5: There is insufficient sharing and coordination of information about sexual offenders among the law enforcement agencies within the County.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Reinstate the SAFE Task Force. Based upon other task force formulas, the Sheriff’s Office and the combined cities would each contribute 50%.

F6: The Sheriff requested a lieutenant’s position from the BOS to oversee the new jail construction. The request was turned down. In order to fund the position, in April 2007 the Sheriff eliminated the sergeant’s position for Sexual Habitual Offender Program (SHOP) and sexual offender/predator coordination. As a result, the San Mateo County sex crimes unit currently functions with one FTE composed of fractional commitments of four investigators.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Regardless of funding, the Sheriff’s Office should reinstate its permanent, dedicated three to four person sexual offender investigation unit, including all SHOP activities.

F7: The Sheriff’s Office successfully oversees and coordinates many taskforces in cooperation with San Mateo County cities’ police forces: Gang, Drug, Vehicle Theft and White Collar Crime, among them. These taskforces remained in place because they received funding from either the local, state or federal governments.

F8: According to the Sheriff’s Office, a joint task force for county-wide, coordinated investigation and enforcement of sexual offenses (similar to SAFE) could be implemented for $1.55 million with 50/50 resource-sharing between the Sheriff’s Office and cities similar to the funding model used for other joint task forces (e.g., white-collar crime, drugs, gangs). Conclusions

F1995: The information available was further expanded by California’s Megan’s Law in 1996 (Chapter 908, Stats. of 1996). As of December 2009, 557 registrants in San Mateo County of the total 750 registered sex offenders are subject to disclosure as required by Megan’s Law.20 In San Mateo County 511 sex offenders are required by law to register with the County Sheriff’s Office and are then monitored by local city police departments. The other 46 sex offenders live in the unincorporated area of the County and are monitored by the Sheriff’s Office. Of the total 557 sex offenders, 40 are in violation because they have not registered or cannot be found. Table 1, below, lists the total number of registered sexual offenders by city (as reported by 19 city Police Departments in response to a Grand Jury survey). Also listed are the number of Megan’s Law registrants and Megan’s Law registration violators by city as of December 2009. It 15 Protecting Children Online. Sergeant Bryan Raffaelli & Detective Jacqueline Chong, presentation to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, April 13, 2007. The ICAC program consists of 59 regional task forces that provide training, networking, and technical assistance for member agencies. http://www.svicac.org/ 17 ACLU - http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/19/offenders/index.html 18 http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Parole/Sex_Offender_Facts/jessicas_law.html 19 http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=3081 20 Megan’s Law website: www.meganslaw.ca.gov/ 5 should be noted that some sex offenders are not required to appear on the public site. For instance, Daly City actually has 98 sex offender registrants, while the Megan’s Law website only shows 68, those that have committed high risk offenses as defined in Megan’s Law. Note that sexual offenders who are transient and those who live in some unincorporated areas of the County are not included in portions of the following Table: Table 1 Sexual Offender Population by City Megan’s Law In Violation of Registered Offenders City Registrants Registration Requirements (PD reports) (meganslaw.ca.gov) (subject to Megan’s Law) Atherton 3 Belmont 30 19 1 Brisbane 2 1 Broadmoor 7 Burlingame 15 8 2 Colma 2 Daly City 98 68 5 East Palo Alto 97 25 3 El Granada 1 Foster City 10 7 1 Half Moon Bay 10 10 3 Hillsborough 0 Menlo Park 32 23 2 Millbrae 17 6 Montara 2 Moss Beach 3 1 Pacifica 45 24 Pescadero 2 1 Portola Valley 1 Redwood City 142 104 11 San Bruno 37 21 2 San Carlos 14 8 San Mateo 57 39 S. San Francisco 132 67 7 Woodside 3 1 TOTAL 750 439 39 6 Chart 3 shows that the number of sex offender registration violations submitted to and prosecuted by the District Attorney has not changed significantly from 2004-2009. Chart 3 Source: San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office D. Law Enforcement A senior County law enforcement official has characterized sexual offenders as the most dangerous criminals other than mass murders. As found during our interviews, law enforcement personnel consider sexual predators among the smartest criminals. It is understood by all in the field that predatory behavior is resistant to permanent rehabilitation. At least 50% of all convicted sexual offenders will re-offend.12 The consensus among law enforcement officers is that the most effective preventative measure against sexual offenders is making regularly scheduled and random contact, plus ongoing observation. While sex offenders are on probation they are monitored by the San Mateo County’s Probation Department. The State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation monitors sex offenders on parole from prisons for major sex crimes. Once offenders complete the terms of probation or parole, the responsibility for monitoring is transferred to local police departments. The County Probation Department’s Sex Crimes Unit was proactive and implemented many innovations. After an offender was convicted, he/she was interviewed to get information about his/her modus operandi, relatives, favorite hangouts, etc. This information is vital for law 7 enforcement officials after the offender is released from custody. Another innovative approach was registering undocumented sex offenders before they were released from jail. Previously, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (ICE) would deport the offenders before they registered as per Megan’s Law. If they returned to the United States, there was no method of tracking them. Of the 196 sex offenders currently on probation in San Mateo County, 76% committed crimes against children, including 49 who were convicted of having sex with a minor under the age of 14. Sex offenders have an historic recidivism rate of 60% or more. Up to now, the San Mateo County Probation Department reports lower recidivism rates than the national average because of continuing, rigorous training and officer contact with probationers. The County Probation Department faces a $9.1 million annual reduction in budget from 2008-2011. In the future, the Probation Department will no longer be able to fund a dedicated sex crimes unit and the personnel will be folded into general enforcement. In 2006, Californians approved Proposition 83, referred to as Jessica’s Law. The provisions of the law were to ensure that sex offenders could not reside within 2000 feet of a school or park and to mandate Global Positioning Supervision (GPS) for life.21 California leads the nation in tracking sex offenders with GPS technology. California has more than 6,600 sex offenders equipped with GPS including all active sex offender parolees in the county.22 The State’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation took the ballot initiative a step farther by attaching GPS units to those sex offenders convicted prior to the 2006 measure.23 The California State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is tasked with monitoring all the State’s sexual offenders’ GPS units. Jessica’s Law is not enforced anywhere in California once the sex offender completes probation or parole. The Law was not funded to provide GPS technology to the local law enforcement agencies after the three or five year parole and/or probation was completed. The cost varies from $4,380 to $9,500 per year for a 24/7 monitoring service. Additionally, the Law did not provide penalties associated with not wearing a GPS monitor once sex offenders complete probation or parole. The Grand Jury surveyed all San Mateo County cities’ police departments as to their success in monitoring sex offenders and educating their communities to recognize predatory behavior. Written responses were received from all 19 police chiefs and the Sheriff. In many cases law enforcement practices changed significantly compared to those employed during the 2003-2007 period when there was county-wide coordination through participation in SAFE. In the absence of a county-wide plan, lacking internet investigation expertise, and shrinking resources, each city devised its own approach. Today, law enforcement practices vary widely among cities as reflected in the range of written responses to the Grand Jury questionnaire (illustrated in Table 2.) 21 http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Parole/Sex_Offender_Facts/Jessicas_Law.html#stats 22 http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Parole/Sex_Offender_ 23 www.csmonitor.com/USA/2009/1106/p02s04-usgn.html 24 http://gpsmonitoring.com/blog/?p=762 and “State to expand tracking of parolees with GPS”: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/24/MN9F1BI81D.DTL 8 Table 2 Sexual Offender Monitoring Practices in San Mateo County Cities ateo u ty Meets Legal Question Requirements Exceeds Legal Requirements 1. In addition to legally mandated “Nothing else is done by “Periodic compliance checks at the registrations, what steps does your our agency beyond the registered residence of the suspect to agency take to ensure that those legally mandated periodic confirm they are, in fact, living at the individuals required to register remain registration of convicted registered residence.” in compliance with their obligations? sexual offenders” 2. What rules and mechanisms do you “No procedures in place. “The Dept has numerous venues of employ if the presence of a particular Must exercise extreme communications including city’s website, registered sex offender requires more caution in disseminating email alert system, telephone call tree to all widespread information information because of households, monthly newsletter and dissemination? exposure to lawsuits.” monthly public meetings. Used when a ‘violent sexual predator’ was released from State mental hospital.” 3. When large gatherings with children “No” “Yes, the (department) conducts proactive will be present does your department criminal background checks on all screen employees and restrict their personnel who work for carnival contact with children as appropriate? companies and individuals who are applying for commercial solicitor permits to work within and/or conduct business within our community.” 4. When sexual registrants are on active “None since the liaison “PD works with State Parole and San parole or probation, what interaction program was eliminated Mateo County Probation in a continuous or joint efforts with San Mateo County due to lack of funding.” effort to assure registrants’ compliance. PD Probation and State Parole does your is in constant contact with (State) Parole agency participate in? Agents from the Daly City and Redwood City Parole Offices to identify Jessica’s Law RSO’s as they enter and/or exit our jurisdiction.” 5. If a sexual registrant that is your “PD does not routinely “Police Department contacts the agency agency’s responsibility moves either follow-up with the new where the individual has moved to confirm elsewhere in California or out of state, jurisdiction.” they have registered. We will then generate do your officers make an attempt to a new report with a new case number and follow-up with the law enforcement document that the 290 (Megan’s Law) agency(ies) that will have jurisdiction registrant has moved to another city. Our over the registrant to insure the department will work together with the whereabouts of the individual remain other jurisdiction to share any necessary known and trackable? information should the 290 registrant fail or be late in his/her registration requirements.” 9 In response to specific questions about SAFE, 16 out of 19 police chiefs felt that reestablishing the SAFE taskforce would be a great benefit to their communities. There was general agreement that a county-wide approach would be the most effective way to address sex crimes, including the monitoring of registered sex offenders. In FY 1996-1997 following the brutal attack in Redwood City on a 9-year old girl by a previous sex offender, the Sheriff’s Office, in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors and with active support/participation from the District Attorney’s Office and Probation Department, established the Sexual Habitual Offender Program (SHOP) in order to monitor sex offenders. It was originally funded through forfeitures and fingerprinting fees. This dedicated sex crimes unit worked in cooperation with the San Mateo County Probation Department to register and track sex offenders throughout San Mateo County. In FY 1998-1999, SHOP was formally funded through Proposition 172 (½-cent sales tax to ‘enhance law enforcement’) and Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds (SLESF) (AB3299 funds generated through vehicle license fees). As found in Board of Supervisors (BOS) records from 2001, the Sheriff used to make annual requests of the BOS to specifically designate SLESF for funding SHOP. With the reduction in state sales tax revenue and SLESF funds, the County now treats these funds as general law enforcement contributions, and the Sheriff can no longer request the BOS to designate a specific funding source for sexual offender tracking and enforcement. From 2003-2007 the SHOP unit was staffed with a sergeant, three detectives and two ICE agents. In addition to the unit’s regular duties, the Sheriff signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Silicon Valley ICAC unit to provide equipment and personnel to monitor child pornography and child exploitation on the Internet. The SHOP sex crimes unit handled 300 San Mateo County sex offender cases per year. The San Mateo County SAFE taskforce consisted of members from the Sheriff’s Office, County Probation Department, Daly City, and South San Francisco Police Departments, which all had signed an MOU committing resources to the Taskforce. The SAFE program’s purpose was to have various law enforcement agencies conduct “sweeps” in specific areas to visit the residences of sex offenders to ensure they were in compliance with regulations. Often Foster City and Redwood City Police Departments would join in the “sweeps”. The taskforce completed six “sweeps” before the California Department of Justice disbanded the program in San Mateo County. Due to the lack of State funding for the SAFE taskforce, the Sheriff’s Office Sex Crimes Unit and the Probation Department Sex Crimes Unit took up the slack. In 2005 the Sheriff’s Office contract to provide investigative services to the East Palo Alto Police Department expired. Two detectives were assigned from that unit to San Mateo County Sheriff's Sex Crimes Unit. The Sex Crimes Unit then became a team consisting of a sergeant and three deputies. Staffing for sexual offender investigation, enforcement, and coordination of city police efforts was then one full- time sergeant and three full-time detectives in the Sheriff’s Office plus two days a week participation from ICE and County Probation personnel. 25 http://articles.sfgate.com/1996-08-07/news/17782043_1_megan-s-law-offenders-task-force 26 Interdepartmental Memo: Sheriff Don Horsley to Board of Supervisors, April 3, 2001 for hearing April 24, 2001. In 2007 the Sheriff’s Office discovered that the two assigned detectives were not funded. They were then eliminated from the budget. Further, in April 2007 to fund the Jail Planning Lieutenant; the Sheriff combined the duties of the SHOP sergeant with the general crimes sergeant. Therefore, in April 2007, the Sheriff’s Office eliminated funding for the dedicated sexual offense enforcement unit within the investigations division resulting in case coverage of one sergeant (25% time), one detective (50% time) and two other detectives (25% total time). This represents a 75% reduction from four dedicated Full-Time-Equivalents (FTEs) to one FTE shared among four persons, as well as the elimination of county-wide coordination among cities. The Sheriff’s Office budget approved by the BOS shows the following appropriations for SHOP: Chart 4 Source: San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Budget documents In addition to general crimes and absorption of the Sexual Habitual Offender’s Program, the one FTE Sheriff’s Sex Crimes Unit continues to work all sex crimes in as a timely manner as they can while investigating other crimes. The Sheriff’s Office indicated to the Grand Jury that they would be open to reestablishing a full- time SAFE/SHOP task force with three dedicated FTEs (a Detective Sergeant and two Detectives). Their draft budget for such an effort is approximately $930,000 in yearly Sheriff’s 11 personnel costs. This can be compared to the present Sheriff’s Office budget of approximately $160 million, though only $10-15 million is truly discretionary, according to the Sheriff’s Office. Findings Sexual Abuse and Assault Against Children 1. Of sex offenses in San Mateo County 76% are committed against children.27 2. When convicted sex offenders are not under consistent and intensive supervision (e.g., face-to-face contact with law enforcement, at both scheduled and random times.)28, they re-offend at the same (or higher) severity levels and frequency as compared with sex offenders not under such supervision.

Page 5

10 pages 7 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The San Mateo County Charter designates the Treasurer/Tax Collector position as an elected office.

F2: The Board of Supervisors has the authority to adopt, by ordinance, additional qualifications for the Treasurer/Tax Collector as specified in Government Code Section 27000.7.

F3: The Board of Supervisors has not adopted the additional Government Code qualifications for the Treasurer/Tax Collector.

F4: The current County Treasurer/Tax Collector meets the additional qualifications of Government Code Section 27000.7.

F5: The Treasurer/Tax Collector has announced his retirement from office.

F6: Any ordinance adopting additional qualifications for the Treasurer/Tax Collector must be enacted by February 15, 2010. Conclusions

F1998: Government Code Section 27000.6 provides for the following: The provisions of Sections 27000.7, 27000.8, and 27000.9 shall become effective only in those counties in which, prior to the first date of the period for filing declarations of candidacy for the office of county treasurer, county tax collector, or county treasurer-tax collector, the board of supervisors by majority vote at a regular meeting with all members present, enact an ordinance adopting the provisions of those sections. That ordinance may be repealed by the board of supervisors at any time.1 The Board has not enacted the provisions of Government Code Section 27000.7 for the Treasurer/Tax Collector office. The Board can, by ordinance, adopt additional qualifications for the Treasurer/Tax Collector prior to the first date of the period for filing declarations of candidacy for the office. The next election for Treasurer/Tax Collector is scheduled for June 2010 and the first date for filing declarations of candidacy is February 16, 2010. If the Board enacts the ordinance after February 15, 2010 the added qualifications would be in effect for the 2014 election. Investigation While investigating another matter, this issue came to the attention of the San Mateo County 2009-10 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury). The Grand Jury reviewed and researched the County Charter and ordinances, state law, and selected websites from other counties in California. Sections 27000.8 and 27000.9 relate to continuing education requirements during the term of office. See attached. Findings 1. The San Mateo County Charter designates the Treasurer/Tax Collector position as an elected office.

Page 2

November 10, 2009 — Charter Amendment Changing the San Mateo County Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector elected offices to

15 pages 12 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: Any change in combining the elected positions of the Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector and/or making them appointed requires a charter amendment.

F2: Since 1982 governmental elections in fifteen California counties authorized the transition from elected Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector positions to an appointed finance position reporting to the County Manager resulting in improved efficiencies.

F3: There are conflicting views regarding a potential charter amendment making the Controller and Treasurer -Tax Collector into an appointed Chief Financial Officer position.

F4: Restructuring of the Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector Departments would likely result in annual cost savings however further analysis is required.

F5: Witnesses suggested that appointed positions allow for greater professional, technical and managerial expertise.

F6: Witnesses suggested that appointed positions allow for the potential of greater accountability to the Board of Supervisors through the County Manager.

F7: While the elected positions are accountable to the public there is no concrete mechanism for the electorate to effectively evaluate the professional, technical and managerial expertise of the elected officials.

F8: Detailed professional qualifications are specified in the Government Code for the Controller position.

F9: Current qualifications for the office of Treasurer -Tax Collector are minimal. The Board of Supervisors recently adopted the more stringent qualifications set forth in the Government Code, which will be effective for the term commencing in 2015.

Related Recommendations (7)

R1: The person possesses a valid certificate issued by the California Board of Accountancy under Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code showing the person to be, and a permit authorizing the person to practice as, a certified public accountant or as a public accountant.

R2: The person possesses a baccalaureate degree from an accredited university, college, or other four-year institution, with a major in accounting or its equivalent, as described in subdivision (a) of Section 5081.1 of the Business and Professions Code, and has served within the last five years in a senior fiscal management position in a county, city, or other public agency, a private firm, or a nonprofit organization, dealing with similar fiscal responsibilities, for a continuous period of not less than three years.

R3: The person possesses a certificate issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors showing the person to be a designated professional internal auditor, with a minimum of 16 college semester units, or their equivalent, in accounting, auditing, or finance.

R4: The person has served as county auditor, chief deputy county auditor, or chief assistant county auditor for a continuous period of not less than three years.

R5: Any person serving in the capacity of county auditor shall complete at least 40 hours of qualifying continuing education, pursuant to subdivision (b), for each two- year period, beginning January 1, 1998, and completing at least 10 hours in each year of the two-year period. At least 20 of the 40 hours of continuing education shall be obtained in governmental accounting, auditing, or related subjects.

R6: Qualifying continuing education may be obtained in the areas of accounting, auditing, or related subjects. In addition, qualifying continuing education may be obtained in any other subject, if it can be demonstrated that the specific educational program contributes to professional competence.

R7: With respect to a county auditor who is a licensee of the California Board of Accountancy, or of the accountancy licensing authority of any other state, or who possesses a certificate issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors, continuing education obtained for purposes of renewal of the license or certificate may be applied to satisfy the requirements of this section. 8

F10: The current recruiting process for other senior appointed managerial positions in the County includes thorough analysis of the requirements and professional skills needed for the position, a broad search process for the most qualified candidates and a thorough vetting of the candidates’ background, experience and suitability for the position.

F11: Although the elected Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector provide annual goals and objectives in the budget that are in concert with the broader goals and objectives of the County, they are not held accountable to the professional performance standards mandated of other department heads. Conclusions The 2009-2010 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

F12: The Grand Jury believes the residents of San Mateo County would be best served by a single County finance department, led by a Chief Financial Officer who is appointed by the County Manager, with ratification of the appointment by the County Board of Supervisors, and reporting to the County Manager. While the Grand Jury believes the single appointed CFO model would be most cost effective and operationally efficient for the residents of San Mateo County, we will leave it to the Charter Review Committee to consider other organizational models, such as separately appointed department heads reporting to the County Manager, if they wish.

September 18, 2009 — “Provision of Indigent Health Care in San Mateo

15 pages 12 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: San Mateo County has had a structural deficit (expenses exceed revenues) since FY 2006-2007. This deficit is projected to be $87 million for the 2009-2010 fiscal year and is expected to increase to $150 million in 2014-2015.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: Address the disparity among (a) the level of health services mandated, (b) its unrealized desire to decrease the Medical Center subsidy from the General Fund necessary to provide the current level of services, and (c) the resultant ballooning of the structural deficit.

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: Prior to the 2011-2012 budgetary cycle, consider taking the following actions: a. Fund the current level of mandated health services by making reductions in other County operations, b. Eliminate health services programs and/or serviced populations that are not mandated by, or fully funded by, federal or state monies, including but not limited to: i. full service for undocumented persons, ii. treatment for indigent persons without a medical need iii. services dropped from Medi-Cal coverage in 2009. c. Lower the medically indigent income level from $44,100, which is 200% of the federal and state mandated level of $22,050.

F2: The Medical Center offers patients an integrated continuum of care which provides for comprehensive medical services. Health System Redesign Initiative Improvement Update, November-March, 2009. See Health System Redesign Initiative Implementation Update, November – March, 2009 for details of the accomplishments and milestones of the Initiative. 7

F3: The Board of Supervisors has recognized the increased demands for health services due to the loss of jobs, lost health insurance and the increase of residents living below the designated poverty level as a result of the recent recession.

F4: The clinics have a nine-month waiting list of 5,000 patients indicating the current demand for medical services is not being met.

F5: San Mateo County is one of only two counties among California’s 58 counties that provides long-term care to its elder indigent population.14

F6: San Mateo County is one of only nine counties in California that provides full health services to undocumented persons. California law requires counties to be the health care provider of last resort only for its documented residents. Thirty-five counties only provide emergency medical services to undocumented adults. 15

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: Some California counties, such as Alameda, Fresno and Yolo, eliminated Medi-Cal optional services (including dental, speech therapy, psychology, podiatry, optician, optometry, audiology, acupuncture and chiropractic) from their programs when the State stopped covering them in 2009.15

Related Recommendations (1)

F8: Of the 35 California counties with a Medically Indigent Service Program (MISP), 16 require a medical need for ‘drop-in’ treatment. San Mateo County is not among these 16 counties.15

Related Recommendations (1)

F9: The Board of Supervisors established the medically indigent income level in the County at 200% of the federal poverty level ($44,100 for a family of four versus the federally mandated amount of $22,050); therefore, services provided by the Medical Center exceed mandated state/federal requirements. All other Bay Area counties, except San Francisco, also set the medically indigent level at 200% of the federal level. San Francisco County sets theirs at 500%.

Related Recommendations (1)

F10: San Mateo Medical Center services provided to residents of San Mateo County were at a lower cost per adjusted patient day (APD) than nine comparable hospital facilities in California in 2006.

F11: Redesign efforts undertaken by the Medical Center have resulted in organizational efficiencies and in savings to the general fund over the last two years.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: Ensure that the Medical Center continue its efforts to reduce costs and increase efficiency through the current redesign initiative. 9

F12: The current federal health care legislation will have a significant impact on addressing the issue of health care for the medically uninsured and indigent. It is difficult to determine the actual impact at this time as its implementation in San Mateo County will not begin until 2014. Conclusions The 2009-2010 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: Work with state and federal legislators to ensure that San Mateo County receives the greatest potential funding possible from both the state and federal levels and that efforts are made to streamline regulations that increase costs or create obstacles to delivering exceptional health care to the residents of San Mateo County.

March 22, 2009 — “Red Light Cameras

90 pages 18 findings 18 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 18 findings

F1: The cities choose locations for the two suppliers of red light cameras to evaluate. The vendors then recommend the location of cameras based on studies which evaluate the potential number of possible red light violations and not necessarily the number of accidents that can be prevented.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: - Implemented o The City of Millbrae agrees that the number of vehicle collisions should be one of the factors to consider when determining where cameras should be installed. The number of violations should also be a primary factor that is considered as each one represents a potential injury collision. The reason to utilize photo enforcement is to reduce violations that lead to collisions and not for financial gain. The California Vehicle Code requires each City to hold a public hearing prior to beginning a photo enforcement program. The City of Millbrae did hold a public hearing prior to beginning a photo enforcement program.

F2: Police Departments and traffic engineers provide their input as to where cameras should be installed with primary emphasis on safety rather than the number of citations that can be issued. Ultimately, both the city and the vendor must agree on the location for installation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: - Implemented o A reduction in collisions is one factor the City of Millbrae considers when evaluating the on-going effectiveness of its red light photo enforcement program. A reduction in the number of violations is another factor we use when evaluating success. Fewer violations result in fewer opportunities for collisions.

F3: The red light camera systems installed in the county are generating significant revenue for the cities. In 2009, the amount the cities receive per citation ranges from $119.17 (San Mateo) to $142.49 (San Carlos). 4

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: - Implemented o The City Council receives regular reports on accident statistics in the City of Millbrae. The City Council believes that traffic safety is crucial to all of our roadways and should not be limited to those few intersections where photo enforcement is used. The City of Millbrae will continue to look at the number of violations when evaluating the effectiveness of photo enforcement. The goal is to reduce the number of violations as well as the number of accidents.

F4: Three cities, Belmont, South San Francisco, and Burlingame have recently instituted red light traffic camera programs. The inception dates are too recent to report reliable empirical data. For the remaining cities, the grand jury estimated the potential monthly revenue based upon data received from the cities. Average Monthly3 Jurisdiction / Intersections Citations Potential City through Sept. 30, 2009 Revenue Daly City San Pedro @ Junipero Serra 177 $23,276 Washington @ Junipero Serra 121 15,912 John Daly @ Sheffield 243 31,955 Hickey @ Gellert 119 15,649 Total Daly City 660 $86,792 Menlo Park Bayfront Expressway @ Willow Rd 137 $20,550 El Camino Real @ Ravenswood & Menlo 327 49,050 El Camino Real @ Glenwood 166 24,900 Total Menlo Park 630 $94,500 Millbrae Millbrae Avenue @ Rollins RD 343 $49,351 Redwood City Whipple Avenue @ Veterans Blvd 89 $11,522 Veterans Blvd @ Whipple Ave. *418 *54,114 Total Redwood City 507 $65,636 San Carlos Brittan Avenue @ Industrial 53 $6,280 San Mateo Hillsdale Blvd @ Saratoga 361 $43,020 Hillsdale @ Norfolk 61 7,257 4th Avenue @ Humboldt 165 19,663 Total San Mateo 587 $69,940 *Average was calculated based on data from November 2009 through March 2010 3 Average number of citations and average revenue earned is based on data provided by the respective police agency to the Grand Jury’s survey. The number of citations and the revenue data as reported were for varying lengths of time – some for a few months; some for a year or more. An average monthly number was computed based on data provided as of September 30, 2009 and used here so as to make the information comparable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The cities receive a portion of the total fine levied on the motorist. Please see the chart under finding #10 which uses South San Francisco as an example for the allocation of the red light violation fine. Each city surveyed provided the 5

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: - Partially Implemented o The City of Millbrae is a participant in the San Mateo County Red Light Photo Enforcement Users Group. We would welcome a protocol developed by the San Mateo County Police Chiefs and Sheriff Association which would enhance the consistency that already exists in the county. The City of Millbrae contracts with the City of San Mateo and both agencies offer motorists the opportunity to view the footage and contest the alleged violation before the citation appears in court. This process helps to reduce the number of appeals made to the court. The courts are provided with a percentage of the fine from red light violations, which should be used for efficient dispositions to red light photo enforcement citations.

F5: The data as reported indicated that in all the jurisdictions above, the revenue earned from citations exceeded direct costs such as the vendor’s fee and employee costs. (Recently, the City of San Carlos extended the yellow light time to comply with state standards and found that the number of citations fell dramatically. As a result the revenue from red light citations could no longer cover the associated costs.)

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: - Partially Implemented o The City of Millbrae complies with the photo enforcement requirements set forth in the California Vehicle Code. This includes the posting of signs that notify motorists of the presence of photo enforcement at the intersection where the equipment is used. The Grand Jury recommendation suggests that additional signage include warning motorists to come to a complete stop. The City does not post this additional reminder as this is implied by the official traffic control device, similar to stop signs and speed limit signs.

F6: - Partially Disagree o The City of Millbrae does view collision statistics as one of several factors to consider when evaluating the effectiveness of photo enforcement. This cannot be the exclusive method. Roadway configuration, traffic volume, and the number of violations must also be considered. For example, the amount of vehicular traffic on Millbrae Avenue and the number of traffic lanes at the intersection with Rollins Road make it difficult for officers to safely enforce violations. While we agree the trends for collision history vary, the goal is to eliminate the violation that causes or contributes to the collision; therefore, the number of violations must be considered as well.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: - Partially Implemented o The City of Millbrae already centralizes the photo enforcement management by contracting with the City of San Mateo, and agrees with the Grand Jury recommendation that this is an efficient method.

F7: - Disagree o Several years back, the City of Millbrae amended its contract with the equipment vendor to eliminate any "cost neutral" clause, and currently pays a pre determined fixed cost for equipment rental. Findings 8 & 9 - Agree o The City of Millbrae does have more violations associated with right turns. Regardless of the direction, a red light violation has the potential to cause a serious accident, whether that is with a pedestrian in the crosswalk or a vehicle lawfully entering an intersection. Accordingly, the fine should be uniform.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Most cities are protected from losses by a “cost neutral” clause in their contracts. In the event that fine revenue received does not cover the monthly cost ofthe contract, the city is only required to pay the actual amount that it did receive. San Carlos and San Mateo among other cities have voluntarily nullified the “cost neutral” clause in their contracts following a recent court case where a citation issued with this clause in place was dismissed by the court. The City ofMenlo Park disagrees wholly orpartially with thefinding. Reason: The City of Menlo Park’s contractdoes contain a cost neutrality clause but its language does not relieve the City ofitsfinancial obligations to Redflex. Ifthe revenue received in any one month does not support thefullpayment ofthe month’s invoice, the unpaidamount isdeferredand the outstanding balance is carriedforward. Any revenue receivedforone yearafter the expiration or termination ofthe contractmust be used topay any outstanding balance. In a recent court case, People v. Berdell on appealJudge MarkForcum ruled that the city’s agreement is legal.

F8: A significant portion of the citations issued from red light cameras are for motorist failure to stop before making a right hand turn. The same fine is applied to both violations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: A significant portion ofthe citations issued from red light cameras are for motorist failure to stop before making a right hand turn. The same fine is applied to both violations. The City ofMenloPark agrees with thefinding.

F9: The fine for failure to stop before making a right hand turn seems out of proportion to similar offenses and as a result is often appealed to the traffic court. The state mandated fine in 2010 for failure to stop at a stop signal or failure to halt before turning right on a red light is $446.00. Traffic School is an additional $60.00. By contrast, the fine for failure to halt at a stop sign is $214.00; and the fine for going 15 mph over the speed limit is $214.00.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The fine for failure to stop before making a right hand turn seems out ofproportion to similar offenses and as a result is often appealed to the traffic court. The state mandated fine in 2010 for failure to stop at a stop signal or failure to halt before turning right on a red light is $446.00. Traffic School is an additional $60.00. By contrast, the fine for failure to halt at a stop sign is $214.00; and the fine for going 15 mph over the speed limit is $214.00. The City ofMenlo Park disagrees wholly orpartially with thefinding. Reason: Thefinefor failure to stopfora redsignal light is $446.00, whethera driver is travelling straight through an intersection or is turning. These offenses are similarand the associatedfines are appropriate in that both involve signal controlled intersections andbothpresentserious safety implicationsfor otherdrivers andpedestrians. Thefineforfailing to stopfora stop sign controlled intersection does seem to be disproportionate to thefinefora signal controlled intersection.

F10: - Agree o The fines received from red light camera citations vary, and it's estimated that the City of Millbrae receives approximately $120 of the $446 fine set by the state.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: Using South San Francisco as an example, ifa motorist is cited for either running a red light or not coming to a full stop before turning right, the $446.00 fine would be distributed among the city, the county and the state. The City ofMenlo Parkagrees with thefinding.

F11: Agree - o Red light cameras provide 24-hour enforcement, which could not be staffed by traditional enforcement. It is not a surprise that the number of citations has increased, especially since more cities have employed the use of photo enforcement.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The number ofcitations that the Superior Court must adjudicate from red light cameras has increased significantly from 2008 to 2009. The City ofMenlo Parkagrees with thefinding. Grand Jury Response 4 August 30, 2010

F12: - Partially Disagree o The Grand Jury Report notes that the County receives a percentage of the fine, which could and should be used to offset what is assumed to be a temporary increase in workload. It is the goal of photo enforcement to reduce potential collisions as a result of fewer violations; therefore, the numbers of citations should gradually decrease as motorists become aware of photo enforcement. The City of Millbrae offers violators an opportunity to view the footage prior to contesting the violation in court. This helps to relieve some of the burden on the courts. Findings 13 & 14 - Agree o The City of Millbrae has also reduced the number of staff devoted to traffic enforcement over the past several years. The Grand Jury reports that eight cities over four years have installed photo enforcement. This is a relatively short time frame. As mentioned in finding 12, the burden should ease over time. The City of Millbrae will continue to work with the courts in any way we can to help improve the processing photo enforcement citations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: The San Mateo County Superior Court system has become overwhelmedwith citizens challenging the $446 citation. The local court is not receiving any additional funding for this increased level of activity which requires additional staffing and resource commitment. The City ofMenlo Parkdisagrees wholly orpartially with thefinding. Reason: Red light camera enforcementprograms in San Mateo County have generatedan estimated $3 millionfor the county alone since their inception. Thisfinding may be correct on itsface, but it ignores the counties receipt ofthe revenue generated by theprogram while at the same timefailing to use thosefunds to support theprogram with adequatepersonnel toprocess the citations.

F13: Local court personnel who have already been reduced by 20% from layoffs and mandated furloughs are in arrears by approximately six months in processing traffic complaints.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: Local court personnel who have already been reduced by 20% from layoffs and mandated furloughs are in arrears by approximately six months in processing traffic complaints. The City ofMenlo Parkdoes not agree nordisagree with thisfinding. Reason: Lack of information related to thefinding.

F14: Based on court statistics the chart below provides an indication of the increasing volume of red light camera citations being issued over the two years ending December 31, 2009. South San Francisco was not included because on Feb. 5, 2010, the City had announced that it would be refunding/dismissing all tickets issued from the beginning of the program up to Jan. 27, 2010 - this was later extended to Mar. 10, 2010. The impact on the Superior Court from the increase in citations is not a consideration when cities are evaluating whether to install the cameras. 7

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: Based on court statistics the chart below provides an indication ofthe increasing volume of red light camera citations being issued over the two years ending December 31, 2009. South San Francisco was not included because on Feb. 5, 2010, the Cityhad announced that it would be refunding/dismissing all tickets issued from the beginning ofthe program up to Jan. 27, 2010 — this was later extended to Mar. 10, 2010. The impact on the Superior Court from the increase in citations is not a considerationwhen cities are evaluating whether to install the cameras. The City ofMenlo Park disagrees wholly orpartially with thefinding. Reason: Increased workloadshould not be a consideration when traffic safety is the issue.

F15: - Partially Disagree o The California Vehicle Code defines what constitutes a violation. Photo enforcement technology assists officers in observing violations. The City of Millbrae contracts with the City of San Mateo for photo enforcement review and red light violation processing, which does bring consistency amongst some of the agencies in San Mateo County. This is also one of the Grand Jury's recommendations. Findings 16 & 17 - Partially Disagree o The City of Millbrae complies with the California Vehicle Code requirement that photo enforcement signage is posted in the City. We favor the use of any additional tool, such as signage, that will gain voluntary compliance with traffic laws, and agree that public education is a valuable component of traffic safety.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: There is not uniformity among all cities regarding criteria used in the evaluation ofpossible violations and the decision to issue citations. The City agrees with thefinding.

F16: Not all cities are using warning signs at red light intersections as a tool to slow down drivers and thereby reduce the number of vehicle accidents. Appendix “A,” contains a selection of pictures of the warning signs used by the cities. Some such as San Carlos are clearly visible placed high and on the signal itself. Others such as those used in Menlo Park are in the far right, some distance from the intersection and often partially hidden by trees and other highway signs. In Daly City there were no warning signs at the intersection of Junipero Serra and Washington.

Related Recommendations (1)

R16: Not all cities are using warning signs at red light intersections as a tool to slow down drivers and thereby reduce the number ofvehicle accidents. Appendix “A,” contains a selection of pictures ofthe warning signs used by the cities. Some such as San Carlos are clearly visible placed high and on the signal itself. Others such as those used in Menlo Park are in the far right, some distance from the intersection and often partially hidden by trees and otherhighway signs. In Daly City there were no warning signs at the intersection ofJunipero Serra and Washington. The City ofMenlo Parkdisagrees wholly orpartially with thefinding. Reason: Currentsignage meets all state mandated requirementsforposting. There are actually two signsposted at the Bayfront and Willow location. The signpictured in the

F17: Police departments view the use of red light cameras and the associated signage as “behavior modification”, basically educating the public that they must be careful to observe moving violations at all intersections.

Related Recommendations (1)

R17: Police departments view the use ofred light cameras and the associated signage as “behavior modification”, basically educating the public that they must be careful to observe moving violations at all intersections. The City ofMenlo Parkdisagrees wholly orpartially with thefinding. Reason: The red light camera enforcementprogram is designedand intended to reduce traffic collisions and increase traffic safety.

F18: - Agree o Red light cameras provide 24-hour enforcement, which could not be staffed by traditional enforcement. As noted in finding 6, roadway configuration and traffic volume also play a role. The City of Millbrae finds red light photo enforcement on Millbrae Avenue safer than traditional officer enforcement due to the heavy volume of traffic and the multiple lanes of traffic. Responses to the Grand Jury Recommendations:

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: The cameras operate 24 hours per day seven days per week compared to a police officer who, if available, would monitor the intersection only sporadically. The City ofMenlo Parkagrees with thefinding. Grand Jury Recommendations Recommendations:

80 pages 10 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: Classification of school fire alarm systems… SSFUSD Response: Agrees

F2: Schools with construction approved prior to January 2008… SSFUSD Response: Agrees

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Boards of Trustees of the Cabrillo Unified and the La Honda-Pescadero Unified School Districts, which have schools under modernization construction, should ensure compliance with the 2007 California Fire Code. Definitions Automatic Fire Sprinkler System is an approved system of devices and equipment, which automatically detects a fire and discharges water onto or in the area of the fire. Automatic Fire Alarm System is a system, which automatically detects a fire condition and actuates fire alarm-signaling devices. Modernization means any modification of a permanent structure or construction of a new building on an existing campus. New Campus means a school project consisting of one or more buildings on a new site for which plans are submitted to the California Department State Architecture’s Office on or after July 1,

F3: Manual alarm systems are allowed to exist in schools where there is no construction or until parts for repair to the fire system are no longer available. SSFUSD Response: N/A

F4: All of the county’s large high school districts have automated systems with direct connections to alarm companies. SSFUSD Response: Agrees

F5: Half Moon Bay High School has a manual system with no plans to upgrade. SSFUSD Response: N/A

F6: Fifty percent of elementary and middle schools have automated systems with direct connections to alarm companies. Forty-five percent have either automated systems without direct connection to alarm companies or a manual system with plans in place to upgrade. SSFUSD Response: N/A

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Boards of Trustees of the Ravenswood City Elementary, Millbrae Elementary, Bayshore Elementary, and San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School Districts, which have schools in the process of upgrading their fire alarm systems or planning to upgrade, should ensure compliance with the 2007 California Fire Code.

F7: Schools with automated systems but no direct connection to an alarm company are only required to have the fire alarm panel in the school office manned during normal school hours. However, most schools host after-hours events, such as musical performances and sporting events, and not all schools man the fire alarm panel during these after-hours events. Risk of injury and death is increased during these functions if there is a significant delay in school personnel arriving at the fire panel to determine the location and severity in the event of a fire.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Boards of Trustees of the Pacifica, Las Lomitas Elementary, Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary, Portola Valley Elementary, San Carlos Elementary, San Bruno Elementary, Hillsborough City Elementary, and San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School Districts have schools with automated alarm systems that do not have direct connections to alarm companies or local public safety agencies. These schools and school districts should review their policies and procedures to ensure the school’s fire alarm control panel is manned by appropriately trained personnel whenever school is in session, occupied, or hosting after-hours events. Additionally, these school districts should budget for upgraded fire alarm systems to provide direct connections to an alarm company or public safety agency for 24-hour, 365-day coverage.

F8: Three schools in the Belmont-Redwood Shores District (Cipriani, Fox, and Central) and four schools in the Cabrillo Unified School District (Farallone View, El Granada, Hatch and Kings Mountain) are on manual pull fire alarm systems with no plans for upgrading or converting their fire alarm systems to automated or addressable systems. The fire alarm systems in these schools are technologically less advanced than those with automated alarms.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Boards of Trustees of the Belmont-Redwood Shores and Cabrillo Unified School Districts perform a feasibility study and provide, within 90 days, plans for upgrading or converting their manual pull station fire alarm systems to automated systems.

F9: Schools with manual systems or automated systems without direct connection to an off- site alarm company must rely upon neighbors or passers-by to contact “911” in the event of a fire that might occur during nights, weekends, or school holidays. Unoccupied, these schools assume greater risk of large-scale fire damage. 4

Related Recommendations (2)

F10: Annual costs for utilizing an off-site supervising station ranged from as little as $450 to $6,800 per year. Conclusions The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: If not an automatic alarm system, are there plans to upgrade the system? When? Are you aware of the potential availability of grants or other financial assistance to help fund the alarm system upgrades? If so, where would you go for assistance? Please return all forms no later than 9-30-08 to: Meredith Monica, Chairperson, Education Committee, San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. In care of: Mas Chikasuye 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 or Fax-650-363-4698 or e-mail mchikasuye@sanmateocourt.org Thank you. 1 5 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Attachment 3 Public School Fire Alarm Survey Results 11/19/2008 AUTOMATIC DIRECT UPGRADE FIRE CONNECT PLANS ALARM TO ALARM DISTRICT NAME SCHOOL NAME SYSTEM COMPANY BAYSHORE ELEMENTARY BAYSHORE Y Y N/A BAYSHORE ELEMENTARY ROBERTSON N N Y BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES ELEMENTARY CENTRAL N N N BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES ELEMENTARY CIPRIANI N N N BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES ELEMENTARY FOX N N N BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES ELEMENTARY NESBIT Y Y N/A BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES ELEMENTARY RALSTON Y N N/A BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES ELEMENTARY SANDPIPER Y Y N/A BRISBANE ELEMETARY BRISBANE Y Y N/A BRISBANE ELEMETARY LIPMAN Y Y N/A BRISBANE ELEMETARY PANORAMA Y Y N/A BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY BURLINGAME Y Y N/A BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY FRANKLIN Y Y N/A BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY LINCOLN Y Y N/A BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY McKINLEY Y Y N/A BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY ROOSEVELT Y Y N/A BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY WASHINGTON Y Y N/A CABRILLO UNIFIED CUNHA N N Y CABRILLO UNIFIED EL GRANDA N N N CABRILLO UNIFIED FARALLONE VIEW N N N CABRILLO UNIFIED HALF MOON BAY HIGH N N N CABRILLO UNIFIED HATCH N N N CABRILLO UNIFIED KINGS MT N N N CABRILLO UNIFIED CABRILLO ADULT N N N CABRILLO UNIFIED PILARCITOS ALTERNATIVE HIGH N N N 1 6 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Public School Fire Alarm Survey Results 11/19/2008 AUTOMATIC DIRECT UPGRADE FIRE CONNECT PLANS ALARM TO ALARM DISTRICT NAME SCHOOL NAME SYSTEM COMPANY HILLSBOROUGH CITY ELEMENTARY BRIDGE Y Y N/A HILLSBOROUGH CITY ELEMENTARY CROCKER Y Y N/A HILLSBOROUGH CITY ELEMENTARY NORTH HILLSBOROUGH Y Y N/A HILLSBOROUGH CITY ELEMENTARY SOUTH HILLSBOROUGH Y Y N/A HILLSBOROUGH CITY ELEMENTARY WEST HILLSBOROUGH Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY BENJAMIN FRANKLIN Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY DANIEL WEBSTER Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY FERNANDO RIVERA Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY GARDEN VILLAGE Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY GEORGE WASHINGTON Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY JOHN F KENNEDY Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY MARGARET PAULINE BROWN Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY MARJORIE TOBIAS Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SUSAN B ANTHONY Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY THOMAS EDISON Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY THOMAS R POLLICITA Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY WESTLAKE Y Y N/A JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY WOODROW WILSON Y Y N/A JEFFERSON UNION HIGH JEFFERSON Y Y N/A JEFFERSON UNION HIGH OCEANA Y Y N/A JEFFERSON UNION HIGH TERRA NOVA Y Y N/A JEFFERSON UNION HIGH WESTMOOR Y Y N/A JEFFERSON UNION HIGH JEFFERSON UNION ADULT ED Y Y N/A JEFFERSON UNION HIGH THORTON HIGH Y Y N/A 1 7 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Public School Fire Alarm Survey Results 11/19/2008 AUTOMATIC DIRECT UPGRADE FIRE CONNECT PLANS ALARM TO ALARM DISTRICT NAME SCHOOL NAME SYSTEM COMPANY LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED LA HONDA N N Y LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED PESCADERO ELM & MID Y Y N/A LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIFIED PESCADERO HIGH N N Y LAS LOMITAS ELEMENTARY LA ENTRADA Y N N/A LAS LOMITAS ELEMENTARY LAS LOMITAS Y N N/A MENLO PARK CITY ELEMENTARY ENCINAL Y Y N/A MENLO PARK CITY ELEMENTARY HILLVIEW Y Y N/A MENLO PARK CITY ELEMENTARY LAUREL Y N N/A MENLO PARK CITY ELEMENTARY OAK KNOLL Y Y N/A MILLBRAE ELEMENTARY GREEN HILLS N N Y MILLBRAE ELEMENTARY LOMITA PARK N N Y MILLBRAE ELEMENTARY MEADOWS N N Y MILLBRAE ELEMENTARY SPRING VBALLEY N N Y MILLBRAE ELEMENTARY TAYLOR N N Y PACIFICA CABRILLO Y N N/A PACIFICA INGRID B LACY Y N N/A PACIFICA OCEAN SHORE Y N N/A PACIFICA ORTEGA Y N N/A PACIFICA SUNSET RIDGE Y N N/A PACIFICA VALLEMAR Y N N/A PACIFICA LINDA MAR ED. CENTER Y N N/A PORTOLA VALLEY ELEMENTARY CORTE MADERA Y N Y PORTOLA VALLEY ELEMENTARY ORMONDALE Y N Y RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY BELLE HAVEN N N/A Y RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY CHAVEZ N N/A Y RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY COSTANO N N/A Y 1 8 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Public School Fire Alarm Survey Results 11/19/2008 AUTOMATIC DIRECT UPGRADE FIRE CONNECT PLANS ALARM TO ALARM DISTRICT NAME SCHOOL NAME SYSTEM COMPANY RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY STANFORD NEW SCHOOL N N.A Y RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY EAST PALO ALTO CHARTER N N/A Y RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY EAST PALO ALTO ACADEMY HIGH N N/A Y RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY BRENTWOOD OAKS N N/A Y RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY JAMES FLOOD MAGNET N N/A Y RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY GREEN OAKS Y Y N/A RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY RONALD McNAIR N N/A Y RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY WILLOW OAKS N N/A Y REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY ADELANTE SPANISH IMMERSION Y Y N/A REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY CLIFFORD Y Y N/A REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY FAIR OAKS Y Y Y REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY GARFIELD ELEMENTARY CHARTER Y Y N/A REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY HAWES Y Y N/A REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY HENRY FORD Y Y Y REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY HOOVER Y Y N/A REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY J F KENNEDY Y Y Y REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY JOHN GILL Y Y N/A REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY McKINLEY INSTITUTE OF TECH Y Y Y REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY NEWCOMER Y Y Y REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY NORTH STAR Y Y Y REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY ORION ALTERNATIVE Y Y N/A REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY ROOSEVELT Y Y N/A REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY ROY CLOUD Y Y N/A REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY SELBY LANE Y Y N/A REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY TAFT Y Y N/A 1 9 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Public School Fire Alarm Survey Results 11/19/2008 AUTOMATIC DIRECT UPGRADE FIRE CONNECT PLANS ALARM TO ALARM DISTRICT NAME SCHOOL NAME SYSTEM COMPANY SAN BRUNO PARK ELEMENTARY ALLEN Y N N/A SAN BRUNO PARK ELEMENTARY BELLE AIR Y N N/A SAN BRUNO PARK ELEMENTARY CRESTMOOR Y N N/A SAN BRUNO PARK ELEMENTARY EL CRYSTAL Y N N/A SAN BRUNO PARK ELEMENTARY JOHN MUIR Y N N/A SAN BRUNO PARK ELEMENTARY PARKSIDE Y N N/A SAN BRUNO PARK ELEMENTARY PORTOLA Y N N/A SAN BRUNO PARK ELEMENTARY ROLLINGWOOD Y N N/A SAN CARLOS ELEMENTARY ARUNDEL Y N N/A SAN CARLOS ELEMENTARY BRITTAN ACRES Y N N/A SAN CARLOS ELEMENTARY CENTRAL Y N N/A SAN CARLOS ELEMENTARY CHARTER LEARNING CTR Y N N/A SAN CARLOS ELEMENTARY HEATHER Y N N/A SAN CARLOS ELEMENTARY TIERRA LINDA Y N N/A SAN CARLOS ELEMENTARY WHITE OAKS Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY ABBOTT Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY AUDOBON Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY THE BAYSIDE S.T.E.M. ACADEMY Y Y N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY BAYWOOD Y Y N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY BERESFORD Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY BOREL Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY BOWDITCH Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY BREWER ISLAND Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY COLLEGE PARK Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY FIESTA GARDENS INT'L Y N N/A 2 0 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Public School Fire Alarm Survey Results 11/19/2008 AUTOMATIC DIRECT UPGRADE FIRE CONNECT PLANS ALARM TO ALARM DISTRICT NAME SCHOOL NAME SYSTEM COMPANY SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY FOSTER CITY Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY GEORGE HALL Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY HIGHLANDS Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY HORRALL Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY LAUREL Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY MEADOW HEIGHTS Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY NORTH SHOREVIEW MONTESSORI Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY PARKSIDE Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY PARK Y N N/A SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY SUNNYBRAE Y Y N/A SAN MATEO UNION HIGH ARAGON Y Y N/A SAN MATEO UNION HIGH BURLINGAME Y Y N/A SAN MATEO UNION HIGH CAPUCHINO Y Y N/A SAN MATEO UNION HIGH HILLSDALE Y Y N/A SAN MATEO UNION HIGH MILLS Y Y N/A SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SAN MATEO Y Y N/A SAN MATEO UNION HIGH PENNISULA N N N/A SEQUOIA UNION HIGH CARLMONT Y Y N/A SEQUOIA UNION HIGH MENLO-ATHERTON Y Y N/A SEQUOIA UNION HIGH SEQUOIA Y Y N/A SEQUOIA UNION HIGH SUMMIT PREPARATORY Y Y N/A SEQUOIA UNION HIGH WOODSIDE Y Y N/A SEQUOIA UNION HIGH REDWOOD HIGH Y Y N/A 2 1 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Public School Fire Alarm Survey Results 11/19/2008 AUTOMATIC DIRECT UPGRADE FIRE CONNECT PLANS ALARM TO ALARM DISTRICT NAME SCHOOL NAME SYSTEM COMPANY SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED ALTA LOMA Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED BURI BURI Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED EL CAMINO HIGH Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED JUNIPERO SERRA Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED LOS CERRITOS Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED MARTIN Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED MONTE VERDE Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED PARKWAY HEIGHTS Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED PONDEROSA Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SKYLINE Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HIGH Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SPRUCE Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SUNSHINE GARDENS Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED WESTBOROUGH Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ADULT Y Y N/A SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED BADEN HIGH Y Y N/A WOODSIDE ELEMENTARY WOODSIDE Y Y N/A B risbane School District Board of Trustees Joseph Blank One Solano Street, Brisbane, Ca 94005 Diane Crampton Tel: 415-467-0550 Fax: 415-467-2914 Bob Dettmer Tom Ledda Ken Walker Building Thoughtful Citizens Superintendent Toni Presta March 11, 2009 Hon. George A. Miram Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Re: Response to San Mateo County Public School Fire Alarm Systems Report Dear Judge Miram, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the findings of the Grand Jury. This letter serves as response from the Brisbane School District to the recommendations found therein.

62 pages 8 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: All SMCo School Districts that have current Proposition 39 voter approved bonds have established COCs and bylaws for oversight committees as required by Proposition 39. Additionally the Grand Jury learned that COCs: a. Have charters and bylaws that have been developed by the School District Boards. b. Are chartered to review and report to the public on the proper expenditures of approved bond projects as outlined in the bond resolution and to report on the efficiency of the expenditures. c. Are not involved in the approval of projects, the selection of contractors or vendors or the approval of construction contracts. According to State legislation, COCs review and report on expenditures after they have been made.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Boards of Trustees of the Millbrae Elementary, Las Lomitas Elementary, La Honda- Pescadero Unified, Hillsborough City Elementary, Burlingame Elementary, Belmont- Redwood Shores School Districts, the Jefferson Union and San Mateo Union High School Districts and the San Mateo County Community College District School District, which all have voter approved construction bonds, should: a. Appoint members to fill the various COC categories who have experience or working knowledge of building and construction, fiscal or financial background and an understanding of school bonds. The Grand Jury acknowledges that in some school districts it may be difficult to identify qualified candidates who are willing to serve. b. Clearly communicate to candidates for COC membership the role and responsibility of the local oversight committees. c. Require in COC bylaws that COCs meet at least four times per year. 5 d. Exhibit greater acceptance of and a willingness to act upon input from COCs. COCs should be encouraged to ask more clarifying questions in order to promote a transparent process. e. Arrange for COC members to meet with the project architect. f. Provide COCs with quarterly reports outlining: i. Proposed project budgets and timelines for voter approved bonds ii. Actual to budget expenditures on open projects covered under voter approved bonds iii. Percent of “on time” completion of open projects covered under voter approved bonds g. Improve the procedures that provide formal, periodic and timely reports to the community regarding COC findings, bond projects and approved expenditures. h. Publish a quarterly newsletter or use other media to update the community on bond projects and approved expenditures. i. Ensure that COC bylaws prohibit the School District from removing a COC member, except for cause. j. Periodically review the status of COC members to ensure compliance with Government Codes 1099 and 1125. k. Require COC members and School District Board members to study and familiarize themselves with the 2009 Little Hoover Commission Report “Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight”.

F2: The Grand Jury investigation learned from COC members interviewed that: a. A few COC members viewed their function as irrelevant because they review projects and expenditures after projects have been approved and monies spent to pay for the construction. b. Most COCs interviewed meet four times per year. COCs are required by the Education Code to meet only once a year. COC members and school district personnel interviewed believe that meeting one time a year was ineffective and agreed that four meetings a year should be the minimum. One member interviewed stated they met six times during the year because they felt that with construction underway and expenses being incurred on a regular basis, additional meetings were required. c. Most COC members interviewed recommended that members should know how to read a financial report and have a working knowledge of bonds and construction. d. Most COC members interviewed stated that there is little to no public participation or attendance at COC meetings. e. Some of the COC members interviewed admit they didn’t know or understand what they are reviewing when presented with the bond expenditure reports. These reports are provided by district administration within 72 hours of a COC meeting, as required by the Brown Act. f. One school district developed a process that kept the COC well informed in the planning, design and construction process. g. Some COC members feel that voter approved bond resolution language is often ambiguous and requires legal interpretation. The Little Hoover Commission created in 1962 as an independent and bipartisan state agency charged with making

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The San Mateo County Office of Education, all School Districts in San Mateo County (through the San Mateo County School Boards Association), and the San Mateo County Community College District. a. Develop and provide mandatory independent training for bond Citizen’s Oversight Committee members. b. Develop and host a website with easy-to-access training materials and easy-to-understand descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of the local citizens’ oversight committee members. The website should include an online training course. Response: This recommendation is not yet implemented but LHPUSD supports the concept of providing independent training for bond COC members. This response was reviewed by the La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District Board of Trustees during the October 14, 2010 Board meeting. Sincerely, Amy Wooliever Superintendent Board of Trustees Andy Wilson, Heather McAvoy, Kathy Crane, Andy LaGow, Connie Sarabia

F3: The Grand Jury found that some school districts were not timely in putting agendas, minutes, bond money expenditures, and approved projects on their websites. In most cases the information was not readily accessible or easy to find.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The District disagrees with this finding with respect to our District. All agendas are posted in compliance with the Brown Act. All other reports are made public after the COC has reviewed the information at a meeting.

F4: The president and co-founder of the California League of Bond Oversight Committees, Michael Day, told the Little Hoover Commission that local oversight committees often are not made aware of the important role they can play, the power that they have and the statutory authority that guides their activities. Committee members generally are not well-trained. In testimony to the Little Hoover Commission, Mr. Day said that “they don’t know what they are supposed to do, what they may do, what they may not do. Largely they receive their instructions from the organization they are supposed to oversee. Not conducive to good oversight.”5

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The District disagrees with this finding with respect to our District. All COC members are given complete copies of the bylaws which delineate their responsibilities as well as the District’s responsibilities to the COC.

F5: Some school districts failed to periodically review the employment and membership on local government commissions and committees to determine that all COC members are compatible in their status as outlined in California Government Codes 1099 and 1125 regarding potential conflict of interest.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The District disagrees with this finding with respect to our District. Annually, all members are reviewed to ensure they are compatible in their status as outlined in California Government Codes 1099 and 1125. The Honorable Clifford V. Cretan August 4, 2010

F6: Two interviewees said there would be value to COC members meeting with the project architect to better understand project scope. Conclusions The 2009-2010 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The District has offered all resources available to the COC upon request. This would include involving the architects at meetings if requested. RECOMMENDATIONS

F7: At least one school district includes in its COC bylaws a provision allowing the district to remove a COC member without cause. Such a provision could threaten the needed independence of the COC member providing oversight that may be critical of the district. It should be noted that such provisions are common practice in public committees.

F8: The failure of some school districts to periodically review COC members’ employment and membership on local government commissions and committees, to determine that all are compatible in their status as outlined in Government Codes 1099 and 1125, could lead to conflicts of interest.