San Mateo County Grand Jury
2010-2011
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (9)
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Either revise the existing or implement a new policy for specific levels of reserves using language consistent with the new GASB Statement 54 hierarchy. a. Establish in the policy the required level of General Fund Balance for classifications that are spendable within the complete control of the government's local decision making authority. b. Require in the policy development ofs pecific plans to restore the required level of reserves in the event they fall below that level. c. Include the policy in the annual CAFR and budget documents. Response a.) This recommendation has been implemented. On June 27, 2011, the City Council adopted a policy that incorporates the language and hierarchy of Governmental Accounting Standard Board (GAS B) Statement No. 54 for its reporting offund balances in the CAFR. Further, the City's reserve policy has been in effect for a number of years, has been included in the published budget document, and conforms to best practices for governmental accounting. "Adequate reserves will be maintained in each of the City's funds to provide for cash flow needs as well as for unexpected emergencies. Levels will be adjusted as required to reflect current and anticipated economic conditions. This includes taking cash flow into account, and will use the low point for cash (normally the end of November before the twice per year receipt of property tax revenues) to determine available cash. Nominally a cash reserve of 15 percent of annual expenditures for the General Fund is considered adequate. Other funds vary from this norm because of circumstances and future needs for things like infrequent large purchases." b.) Additional wording to be added to the reserve policy, such as "Should the level of reserves fall below a level that is less than that which is considered appropriate given the economic circumstances, the City will develop specific plans for returning reserve levels to an adequate amount." will be brought to the City Council for its consideration, approval and implementation in advance of July 1,2012. Honorable Joseph E. Bergeron RE: 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report: Running on Empty? of5 c.) This recommendation will be implemented with the issuance of the City'S Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 20 II. The City will refer to its fund balance policy in the note disclosures and in the Management Discussion and Analysis per GASB 54 guidelines.
F2:
Government accounting systems and financial statements provided to the public are complex and not readily understandable to the average citizen trying to assess the financial health of their city or County. Response: The City neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding, as there is enough flexibility in what supplemental information is presented that a City's or County's CAFR can be reasonably informative to the average citizen. Additionally, all financial statements by their nature require a certain level of knowledge in order to be properly interpreted. The implication that there is a simple way to make them more understandable is in itself an oversimplification. Honorable Joseph E. Bergeron RE: 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report: Running on Empty? of5
F3:
Four cities (Brisbane, Colma, Pacifica, and Portola Valley) did not have 2010 CAFRs posted to their websites as of March 11,2011, almost nine months after the close of the fiscal year. Response: The City neither agrees or disagrees as the finding does not pertain to Daly City.
F4:
All cities and the County had Unreserved General Fund Balances (reserves) consistent with GASB 34 recommended standards going into the recession, and have managed through the last three years in a way that maintained reserves on June 30,2010 that were still above those minimum levels. Response: Concur with the finding.
F5:
All cities and the County maintained GASB 34 minimum recommended levels of reserves, whether or not they had city council approved policies requiring maintenance of defined levels of reserves. Response: Concur with the finding.
F6:
Some city policies are written to apply to "reserves" and not explicitly to the unreserved component of them as recommended by GASB 34. This allows for inclusion of funds not available for discretionary spending. Response: Concur with the finding.
F7:
All cities complied with their own policies (where policies existed) from 2007-10 with respect to reserves, even in those few cases where those policies required higher levels than those recommended by GASB 34. Response: Concur with the finding.
F8:
Confusion as to how governments categorized and interpreted what portion of fund balance was available for discretionary spending led to development of a new GASB 54 standard; effective for all financial statements after June 30, 2011, which provides more structure and clarity around constraints placed on fund balances. San Mateo County implemented GASB 54 early, with the new terminology reflected in its FY 2010 CAFR. No cities in San Mateo County implemented early. Response: Concur with finding as it pertains to Daly City.
F9:
One city (Millbrae) had a Running Liquidity below 90 days. Response: Neither agree or disagree with this finding as it pertains solely to the City of Millbrae.
F10:
All cities and the County are fully funding their Annual Required Contribution to CALPERS or Sam CERA for retiree pension funding. Response: Concur with finding as it pertains to Daly City. Honorable Joseph E. Bergeron RE: 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report: Running on Empty? of5
F11:
Ten participating cities are not making their full actuarially determined OPEB payments for retiree health care benefits, with three cities (Atherton, Brisbane, Foster City) having paid at less than an average of 25 percent for the last two years. Response: Concur with the finding as it pertains to Daly City.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
There has been an increase in both total departures and night departures from SFO. Increased volume and changed flight patterns have had an adverse impact on some northern San Mateo County communities including Brisbane and parts of Daly City and South San Francisco. Some of the areas currently experiencing the most severe impacts either declined to participate or were deemed ineligible for the original noise insulation program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Take an active role in revitalizing the SFO Roundtable to make sure that the interests of San Mateo County and its residents are fully represented, and that every effort is being made to mitigate the severe and increasing impacts of SFO airport expansion on San Mateo County residents. The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors and the member cities of the SFO Roundtable direct their representatives to take action that will:
F2:
Noise data collected by SFO and monitored by the SFO Roundtable address noise averages and do not focus on single events. No data is collected on individual night-time events, which can be the most distressing to residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Request the SFO Noise Abatement Office to deploy equipment to measure and track the intensity of structural vibration on departure flight paths.
F3:
The violation of noise standards by any aircraft is deemed a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of $1000. Under California law, San Mateo County has the authority to impose fines and sanctions for violations of noise regulations established by the State of California, Division of Aeronautics. San Mateo County does not impose fines or sanctions on offending airlines as a matter of policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Change the focus of required data collection and reports to ACTUAL noise measurements rather than COMPLAINTS from residents about noise.
F4:
The State of California, which issues the airport operating permit, is not represented as an advisory member of the SFO Roundtable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Increase the focus on single event noise violations and frequency, especially with night departures, rather than the 65dbCNEL which represents an average of noise experienced within a 24 hour period.
F5:
Reports received by the SFO Roundtable, prepared by the SFO Noise Abatement Office, are not easily accessible to the public on the website (www.SFORoundtable.org). Information on the website was not current and a message stating that the website is "under construction" was displayed for the approximately one year duration of this investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Adapt the "Fly Quiet" Program to include sanctions as well as rewards based on single event violations, particularly with night departures. 6
F6:
The Roundtable membership does not include any individual residents, nor do they have any citizen representation on any subcommittees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Create a sub-committee of the SFO Roundtable comprised of the elected representatives from the northern San Mateo County cities most impacted by aircraft departure noise to focus on mitigating the problems in those communities.
F7:
The bylaws of the SFO Roundtable do not require that the Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson be elected representatives from the participating San Mateo County communities who are accountable to their constituencies. The current Chairperson of the SFO Roundtable is not an elected official.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Modify the SFO Roundtable bylaws to require that both the Chair and Vice-Chair be elected officials from participating San Mateo County communities.
F8:
The level of attendance by SFO Roundtable members varies widely and is declining overall. Daly City has withdrawn from membership entirely, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors representative has not appeared since February of 2009. The SFO Roundtable recently decided to reduce their meeting schedule from monthly to quarterly.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Expand SFO Roundtable membership to include a representative from the State of California, Division of Aeronautics, to serve as a liaison. The 2010-2011 San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the City Council of Daly City:
F9:
Public participation at SFO Roundtable meetings is minimal. With one exception, all of the elected members of the SFO Roundtable and all of the residents interviewed stated that noise complaints were not a reliable source of feedback because people had either "given up" or did not believe that complaining was effective. 5
F10:
Daly City withdrew as a member of the SFO Roundtable in 2010, citing budget restraints as the reason. Membership fees for 2010 were $750. Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Patients with dementia and behavioral issues remain at BLTC for lack of alternative placements; releasing them without placements is prohibited by law.4 4 Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 482.43 and Title 42, United States Code, Section 1395x(ee). Additional California hospital discharge planning requirements are established at California Health and Safety Code Sections 1262.5 –1262.6. 3
F2:
After spending time recuperating from medical conditions, patients often have lost their homes or other housing arrangements; therefore BLTC becomes their only residence and cannot release them until a safe and appropriate housing is obtained.
F3:
The lack of available low-cost housing in the county makes it difficult for BLTC staff to find safe discharge for patients who no longer need skilled nursing care.
F4:
Medi-Cal is the primary means of payment for approximately 94% of the patients at BLTC. A small number do not qualify for any insurance but still need skilled nursing care.
F5:
Medi-Cal will pay only its “accepted fees,” a rate significantly lower than the cost to the hospital. Medi-Cal has cut its reimbursement rates over the last several years. There was a 2-year rate freeze for fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11.5 The State of California has now proposed an additional 10% cut for FY 2011-12.6 BLTC continues to run deficits annually.
F6:
Many residents of BLTC no longer require skilled nursing, but placement at a lower level of care is not feasible because Medi-Cal will not pay for Residential Care Facilities, smaller Board and Care Facilities, or Assisted Living Facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Continue to enlist support from locally elected state and federal legislators to obtain Medi-Cal waivers allowing Long-Term Care Integration to be administered by the County. 5 www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/medi-cal/Pages/LTCRU.aspx http://files.medi-cal.ca.gov/pubsdoco/newsroom/newsroom_12192.asp 6 aarp.org/bulletin MAY 2011 – "The Law" 4
F7:
A Medi-Cal waiver for Long-Term Care Integration is pending in the State legislature and could be implemented as early as 2012 if passed. Conclusions The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Pursue appropriate renovations necessary to consolidate long-term care at the Medical Center main campus and close Burlingame Long-Term Care facility.
R2:
Continue to seek assistance from locally elected state legislators to expedite Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development approval of the renovations required to provide long-term care at the main campus.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
There is no apparent correlation between the existence of policies and/or ordinances regarding cell towers and the likelihood of public resistance to an application.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Review and revise, if needed, the current fee structure to recoup staff costs for processing cell tower applications. Implemented: The City ofMenlo Parkfullyrecovers the cost toprocess use permit applications for cell tower installations. In rare cases, ifan application is appealed to the City Council costs of processing the appeal may not be fully recovered. The City re-evaluates its fee structure annually to maximize costrecovery.
F2:
TEL.650.330.6670 FAX650.327.5382 Locating applicable cell tower ordinances and policies on County and City websites is Planning cumbersome. TEL650.330.6702 FAX650.327.1653 The City ofMenlo Park partially agrees with thisfinding. City websites arefilled with current Police TEL650.330.6300 andhistorical information, creating a struggle to highlight “important”information to the user FAX650.327.4314 searchi.ng for very specifi.c information. We continue to work to develop our website to enhance its usability to the online user. Cityordinances relatedto utilitytransmissionfacilities, TEL6503306770 FAX650.327.5497 as well as noticing, staffreports, and minutesfrom publicmeetings are availableforinterested parties on ourwebsite. Finding#3 Federal law precludes the use of perceived health risk as a basis for denying an application; visual or aesthetic impactsare a valid reason to deny or modify an application, so long as the denial does not cause a significant gap in service coverage that cannot feasible addressed by alternatives. The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding to the extent that Council actions should conform tofederalandstate law. Finding#4 Some cities do not require service providers to maintain cell towers and/or remove installationswhen they are no longer used, become obsolete, orthe permit expires. The City ofMenlo Park agrees with thisfinding to the extent that itis within the capacityofthe City to control the maintenance and removal of existing installations. The City has authority over cell towers on private and public property through the use permit and encroachment permit processes, as well as through lease agreements on public property. The City does not have any regulatory authority concerning cell antenna on public utilities. The City includes provisionsformaintenance andremovalin lease agreements. Finding#5 The County and all cities have varying filing and processing fees for processing cell tower applications. The City ofMenlo Park agrees with thisfinding in that ourfees are set tofully recover the cost ofprocessing the applications, and itmay be that other cities have not adopted thatsamecost recoverymodel. Finding#6 The County and 12 of 20 cities generate widely varying amounts of revenue through cell tower lease agreements. The CityofMenlo Park agrees that as with any individualnegotiated agreement, revenues may vary depending on a number offactors such as the location of the property, the term of the agreement. and the availability of information regarding similar leases in surrounding jurisdictions. The City would agree that the City should achieve the best value possible. The City didseek out comparable informationfrom otherjurisdiction when negotiating the existing lease that we hold with Cingular, in an effort to achieve afair market rentfor those types of facilities at the time. Finding#7 Five cities which have cell towers on public property are not charging service providers for land use; three cities do not currently have cell towers located on public property. The City of Menlo Park agrees with the intent of charging for the use of public land or infrastructure, although Menlo Park is notone ofthe eightcities referredto above. GrandJury Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Negotiate lease agreements for future installations on public land that generate revenue or othertangible benefittothe community. Implemented: The City of Menlo Park will continue to require revenue generating lease agreementsfor use ofpublicland. Recommendation#3 Add cell tower maintenance and removal provisions if they are not already included in existing ordinances and lease agreements. This recommendation requires further analysis. The City of Menlo Park currently requires the removal of the “communication facility” at the end of our lease agreement. Our practice has been to incorporate such requirements into new agreements or leases rather than adopting ordinances which are cumbersome to modify. Incorporating controls into the actual lease agreement enables the City to be more nimble in incorporating new requirements into new or renegotiated agreements. The City will also consider incorporating this recommendation as a condition ofapproval in use permits. Recommendation#4 Require that all new lease agreements contain a provision requiring service providers to install newer technologyas it becomes commercially available to reduce the footprint ofcell towers. This recommendation requires further analysis. The City of Menlo Park agrees to study the inclusion of this requirement into our use permit process when an update of our process is undertaken. It should be noted that the City does not maintain any “cell tower technology experts” on staff. As a result, there may be an inherent lack of expertise in recognizing that newertechnology is available for installation to reduce the footprint oftowers. Recommendation#5 Develop a webpage within County and city websites which clearly posts local ordinances, policies and procedures as well asfederal regulations related to cell tower installations The City of Menlo Park agrees with this recommendation in concept but it requires further analysis. If achievable, the suggested changes will be incorporated as future website improvements occur. The City currently posts City ordinances related to utility transmission facilities as well as ordinances, guidelines and application submittal information for use permits. Federal Regulations are not within the purview ofthe City, and are typically complex, requiring some expertise in their interpretation. The City Council and staff acknowledge that planning applications are often complex, and in the case of cell towers, controversial. We appreciate the time and effort of the San Mateo Grand Jury in scrutinizing the issues involved. Glen Rojas, City Manager
F3:
Federal law precludes the use of perceived health risk as a basis for denying an application16; visual or aesthetic impacts are a valid reason to deny or modify an application, so long as the denial does not cause a significant gap in service coverage that cannot feasibly be addressed by alternatives.17
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Add cell tower maintenance and removal provisions if they are not already included in existing ordinances and lease agreements;
F4:
Some cities do not require service providers to maintain cell towers and/or remove installations when they are no longer used, become obsolete, or the permit expires (see Attachment).
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Require that all new lease agreements contain a provision requiring service providers to install newer technology as it becomes commercially available to reduce the footprint of cell towers; and
F5:
The County and all cities have varying filing and processing fees for processing cell tower applications (see Attachment).
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Develop a webpage within County and city websites which clearly posts local ordinances, policies and procedures as well as federal regulations related to cell tower installations. The Grand Jury further recommends the City Councils of Daly City, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Portola Valley, and Woodside pursue new or amended leases for existing cell towers on public property that are not currently generating revenue or other community benefits. Cell Tower Cities and County Survey Responses Number of Number of Does the city Does the city's Is there a Is there a Have you had What is the current cost to Does the city If yes, what is If yes, how is cell towers cell towers have codes code/ordinanc provision provision applications file an application or permit generate revenue the a average revenue on private on public or ordinances e cover both requiring requiring withdrawn by for a cell tower structure? paid by service annual generated by property property governing public and service service service providers in addition revenue paid cell towers cell towers? private providers to providers to providers due to application or by service used by the property? maintain cell remove cell to public permit fees from cell providers to city? towers? towers if resistance? towers installations?the city that is obsolete or a generated use permit from cell ends? towers? AAAAtttthhhheeeerrrrttttoooonnnn 3 0 NO N/A N/A NO NO C p o l n u d s i t $ io 2 n ,0 a 0 l 0 u s d e e p p o e s rm it i - t $ - 3 F , e 9 e 1 9 $ 1 to ,9 ta 1 l 9 NO N/A N/A Fees: -complex project fee $13,272 (deposit) BBBBeeeellllmmmmoooonnnntttt 18 7 YES YES NO YES r 2 e 0 f v f r 0 o i o Y e 9 r m E w , w S n s a i o t . f p h r w P p d o u l r m w i a b c w a a l 2 ic i n a 0 t i t l n 0 . g 7 -$2 -n , - 6 E e 9 - w n f 1 i v r c e i o r o o r f n e n $ s e m 1 t r , f e u 7 o n c 0 r t t 4 a o p io l n l ( a n e r ly e n q e ) v u c n ie i h g p w e i m n c e f e k e e n e $ r t i 2 n $ c 6 g 5 h 8 4 a fe 7 n e g e Y p E u c S b e . l l i l c T t c h o p i e w t r y o r e e p h r e s a a r l r p l t e , i l e a e l s e c tc a e ( . p s d a e o r s k n f s o , r Unknown ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a -county recording fee $50 -3rd party review of RF exposure study (deposit during review). BBBBrrrriiiissssbbbbaaaannnneeee 15 3 YES YES NO YES NO $2, $ 6 8 9 5 8 1 - p -a la d n m n i i n n i g s t c ra o t m iv m e i p s e si r o m n i t u . se YES, land lease $1,500/month gen D e e r p a o l s fu it n e d d f t o o r a permit variety of uses BBBBuuuurrrrlllliiiinnnnggggaaaammmmeeee Unknown Unknown NO N/A NO NO YES, once (2010) Depends c o u s p t o o n f l i e n v s e ta l l o la f t i r o e n view and wh Y e E r S e is . c l O i i e n ty a n s s l t o y a e w l i d l n a n f t e i o i n o d r s n t t p a h r n e o c p e e s r ty $ p i 2 n u 5 s b , t l 0 a o ic 0 l n l a 0 p o t r i ( n o o b e p n a e s o r e n ty d ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a CCCCoooollllmmmmaaaa 4 0 NO N/A NO YES NO Minor use permit $905 NO N/A N/A DDDDaaaallllyyyy CCCCiiiittttyyyy 45 15 YES YES YES YES YES, once (2010) $3,700 NO N/A N/A YES standard Staff level-minor cell tower cost- EEEEPPPPAAAA Unknown Unknown YES YES YES condition of NO $667. Conditional use permit-major NO N/A N/A approval cell tower cost-$3,862 The City receives approximately FFFFoooosssstttteeeerrrr CCCCiiiittttyyyy 26 6 NO N/A YES NO NO per A m rc it h $ it 2 e 0 c 0 tu d ra e l p r o e s v i i t e . w A p $ p 2 l 0 ic 0 a . n U t s p e a ys YES $ in 9 6 r , e 0 v 0 e 0 n u p e e r f r y o e m ar gen D e e r p a o l s fu it n e d d f t o o r a for cost to process the leasing of 4 variety of uses sites for cell towers HHHHMMMMBBBB 2 1 NO N/A Y o E f S C a D s P a a c p o p n r d o i v ti a o l n Y o E f S C a D s P a a c p o p n r d o i v ti a o l n NO de $ t 1 e , r c 3 m o 0 i m 0 n e p d d l e e p b te o y s p t i i r t m o ( c e a e c r s t e u s q a in u l g i c r ) e o d s t t o NO N/A N/A The town collects HHHHiiiillllllllssssbbbboooorrrroooouuuugggghhhh 0 11 YES YES YES YES Y (2 E 0 S 0 , 6 o /0 n 7 ce ) $2,500 YE p S ro , p if e r le ty a s is e n o e f e p d u e b d lic a si n t $ e n 1 s u 6 . a 2 ( l $ l , y 1 1 2 f , o 9 0 r 3 0 7 ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a monthly per site.) MMMMeeeennnnlllloooo PPPPaaaarrrrkkkk 39 9 YES p N ro O p , e p rt r y iv o a n te ly NO NO NO U to t s i m e h o e p u e e r r l x m y p b i e t i n l d li d e n e p g d o r s a to i t t e w is s a $ f r o d 1 r , t 5 h a 0 e c 0 t u p s a ro u l j b s e j t c e a t c ff t s a Y i g t E e r S e s in e u . m b C th j u e e e r c n r t P t e t w n u o t b i l t a y l h i c o l t e h n R a e l O y s e C W o i n t y e is . s $ t u 2 h b , e 5 a j e 0 g o c 0 r n t e / e m t e o c m o e a n e l l t l n e h s t a i f t s o e e r ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a MMMMiiiillllllllbbbbrrrraaaaeeee 14 5 YES YES YES YES NO $7,000 on p o ri n v a p t r e o p p e ro rt p y erty; $2,000 YES. o L n e c a i s ty e s p r f o o p r e fa rt c y ilities $1 fa 5 c ,0 p il 0 r i o t 0 y p / o y e e n rt a y c r i t p y e r ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a PPPPaaaacccciiiiffffiiiiccccaaaa 40 0 YES p N ro o p , e p r r ty iv a o t n e ly YES YES tha Y n E o S n , e o n o c m c o a r s e io n $3,750 NO N/A N/A PPPPoooorrrrttttoooollllaaaa VVVVaaaalllllllleeeeyyyy 5 5 YES YES YES YES NO $ $ 4 7 2 , 0 5 / 0 fe 0 e / ; NO N/A N/A Deposit RRRReeeeddddwwwwoooooooodddd CCCCiiiittttyyyy Unknown Unknown YES YES YES NO NO 1 I / f 4 p a ro c p re e r $ ty 1 k > fo f 1 r o / u r 4 s A a e r c c p r h e e . r $ P m 5 e i k t rm d i e t, p $ o 2 s , it 8 ; 3 < 0 Y i o s E r o S y n e . a c O r it n l y y e t l l h a e c e n a e d s c ll e ; it i n y a is s m t p a o a ll n a id t t h io t l o y n $1k - m $1 o , n 6 t 6 h 6 per ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a SSSSaaaannnn BBBBrrrruuuunnnnoooo Unknown Unknown YES YES YES YES Ye o s, n o e n o m cc o a r s e i o th n an Ad U m s in e A pe p r p m ro it v : a $ l 2 : , $ 1 1 4 , 5 320 o Y w E n S e t . d a O n p k n a , l r y p c i e a f l r b k ( u e , i . e l g t t . c o , . n ) w c a i t t e y r $24 o , n 0 0 a 0 v e p r e a r g y e ear ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a $2,000- SSSSaaaannnn CCCCaaaarrrrlllloooossss 9 3 YES YES YES YES tha Y n E o S n , e o n o c m c o a r s e io n $5,660.00 YES. La p n r d o p le e a rt s y e of city $ $ 3 2 ,0 4 0 ,0 0 0 /m 0- o ge v n D a e r e i r e p a t o l y s f u o it n f e d u d s f t e o o s r a $36,000/yr. If in parks, used for SSSSaaaannnn MMMMaaaatttteeeeoooo Unknown Unknown YES not specific YES NO NO NO u D lt e im po a s te it l y a m be o u m n ti o t m r o e e f b $ a 2 s ,0 e 7 d 9 o ; n c o s u ta ld ff eq Y u E ip S m . i R s I e f O n n i W n e t/ g p c o o o it t n l y i e a s c p te , i a t d y a rk l s e a o s r e T ne h f g e ir o s c t t i i t a l y e t i a i n s s g e s i t t i s ll pu p r P p o P u o le a b s s r e l k i , c s u & . W s I e f R o d o e r n k c fo s c r i ty purposes SSSSSSSSFFFF Approx 30 Approx 8 YES YES YES YES NO Use permit application - $4,070 fr Y o E m S m $ . R o , n e 5 t v 0 h e 0 p n -$ e u 3 r e , s 0 r i a t 0 e n 0 g p e e s r $ A 1 p 6 p 8 ro ,0 x 0 im 0/ a y t e e a ly r ge v n D e e e r r i p a ty o l s f o u i f t n e u d d s e f t o o s r a WWWWooooooooddddssssiiiiddddeeee 6 9 YES YES YES YES NO $1,790 for CUP f a e n e d s Building permit NO N/A N/A CCCCoooouuuunnnnttttyyyy 71 42 YES YES YES YES tha Y n E o S n , e o n o c m c o a r s e io n Varies - generally about $7,813 oc f C r r a c e o a Y o l a v m s n u E s i o C e d n i S o c w o r t B a n . e y u r a A c b u n ( r e R l y i i d t l l e y y d i m e v t r h i P s r e a n i e e n s l r g l q o o i P P s r u D p c e r t l i a e r o a e v r a e t r p n e p e t t d e y i n n t d v . r i u i e n s t T o e y g n h ) e Un B t P o k $ u l n a t 6 i h l o n d 0 e w n i 0 n i C n n g to o g a D u t m a h e n n e o p ty d u t . . n t r C e t o v h R A u b i e e R e n u d t w v P o e a t i m y l e s d v l l h l a n i o e u i n a o n n u c n n i l w g n s l e a u k o t i t n e n r D c t i e a t o o g a e d f t i w o i t s p t a v e h r n t e n d . e d a t o s 6
F6:
The County and 12 of 20 cities generate widely varying amounts of revenue through cell tower lease agreements (see Attachment).18
F7:
Five cities which have cell towers on public property are not charging service providers for land use19; three cities do not currently have cell towers located on public property.20 Conclusions The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that: The County and most cities have governing policies and/or ordinances that prescribe cell tower installations. Having an ordinance in place does not reduce the likelihood of public opposition to a cell tower application. The County and cities need to balance public desire for improved wireless reception with local concerns regarding health, aesthetics, and property values while recognizing the rights of service providers under federal law. Telecommunications Act of 1996. No. 05-56106 – Sprint PCS Assets PCS LP v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, op. cit. Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco. Daly City, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Portola Valley, and Woodside have cell towers on public property and do not receive revenue for land use. Atherton, Colma, and Pacifica do not currently have cell towers located on public property. The County and cities which have cell towers located on public property should establish lease agreements with service providers to generate revenue to the general fund. The County and cities have varying cell tower application fees for recouping staff costs in processing these often complex applications and use permits. There is no standard way of ensuring that cell towers are maintained or removed when they are no longer used or the permit expires. Cities which do not already have maintenance and removal provisions required of service providers may be responsible for cell tower maintenance and/or removal on public property. Educating the public about applicable governmental regulations may help to alleviate some of the angst generated by cell tower installations.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Expo Association retains all revenues generated from all operations of the Event Center, as well as those from pari-mutuel wagering. Revenues generated by the Jockey Club are projected to increase if wagering is expanded with the passage of legislation legalizing wagering on sporting events.
F2:
San Mateo County shares responsibility with the Expo Association for building maintenance or capital improvements over $100,000; yet it does not share in any revenues generated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Direct the County Manager and County Counsel to work with the San Mateo County Exposition and Fair Association on an amendment to the operating agreement that would provide for new revenue opportunities for the County. The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends the Board of Directors of the San Mateo County Fair and Exposition Association:
F3:
Commercial and residential development projects slated for land adjacent to the Event Center could provide further opportunities for increased revenue generation.
F4:
The Board of Supervisors has significant control over the Association since the Board appoints the Association's Board of Directors who serves at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors is required to approve the Association's budget.
F5:
An "internal audit" of the Association has historically been performed by the County Controller's Office. Conclusions The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Use an external public accounting firm for the Association's annual audit. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence County Manager’s Office DATE: August 12, 2011 BOARD MEETING DATE: September 13, 2011 SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING: None VOTE REQUIRED: Majority TO: Honorable Board of Supervisors FROM: David S. Boesch, County Manager SUBJECT: 2010-11 Grand Jury Response RECOMMENDATION: Accept this report containing the County’s response to the 2010-11 Grand Jury report: It’s Not the Same Old County Fair.
F2020:
Any amendment to the original agreement requires approval by the Board of Supervisors and the Association’s Board of Directors. The Jockey Club, opened in 2008, is an on-site satellite wagering facility that offers patrons the opportunity to place bets on live horseracing broadcasts from around the world. Open Wednesday through Sunday, the club has filled the void left by the closure and demolition of the nearby historic Bay Meadows Racetrack. Based on the 2007 prospectus, it appears that the Jockey Club has generated revenues that have exceeded initial financial expectations.3 The operating agreement between the County and the Association stipulates that the Association shall manage the property and retain all income generated from activities in its use. By contract, revenues are to be used to maintain all buildings on the property. While the Association receives no subsidy from the County to run the Fair or other activities, it retains all of the earned revenue. The property used to be called the “Expo Center” but was changed to the “Event Center” in order to attract other events such as corporate events and trade shows. The Jockey Club at the Event Center is distinct from the now defunct Jockey and Turf Club at Bay Meadows Racetrack. Prospectus prepared for the San Mateo County event Center by Christopher Korby, Executive Director, California Authority of Racing Fairs 2007. However, the agreement provides that the County and the Association will share the cost of any capital improvements over $100,000 and all major maintenance on the Event Center property. The Event Center has a significant impact in the local community due to the County Fair and other major events. It generates an estimated $40 million in annual revenues for the local economy as event participants spend money at area hotels, restaurants, stores, and shopping centers.4 The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury), in the course of its review of financial records 5, examined the fiscal year 2009 audit report issued by the San Mateo County Controller's internal audit staff. It was noted that the Jockey Club opening in 2008 generated significant revenues that augmented the financial viability of the Event Center. In 2009, the addition of this single year round activity exceeded all other Event Center sources of revenue. Revenues generated by the Jockey Club in 2008 (opening of the facility in August to year end December 2008) were $900,000; in 2009, $3,300,000; and 2010 (estimated and unaudited), roughly $3,300,000. These revenues exceeded forecasts and enabled the Association to perform long-deferred maintenance and refurbishing of Event Center buildings. The Expo Association Board continues to explore potential long-term alternative sources of revenue for the property including, but not limited to, adding a Sports Book for wagering, and possible real estate projects. Investigation This report has been compiled from numerous sources. The methodology included the following: • A review of the 2009 audit of the San Mateo County Exposition and Fair Association by the San Mateo County Controller’s Office, including audit staff's recommendations. • Identification through the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office of the parcel number, size and deed of ownership to the property known as the Event Center.6 • Research of historic documents pertinent to the Event Center property, including original and subsequent agreements between the County and the Association. • Interviews with County and Event Center senior managers with direct knowledge of the Event Center operation. • A review of the agreement between The Jockey Club and Northern California Off-Track Wagering Inc., a state-licensed firm responsible for the pari-mutuel employees and collection of the wagers in the Jockey Club. • Revenue sources for the Event Center were identified. The Grand Jury reviewed documents pertaining to the creation of the Jockey Club, including a 2007 prospectus 4 “Economic Impact of California Fairs”, November 2010 and “Fairs: Exploring a California Gold Mine”, a report prepared by KPMG at the request of The California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Fairs and Expositions, 2003. Penal Code §925 6 San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, parcel number: 040-030-220. 3 prepared by the California Authority of Racing Fairs on potential revenues for the Event Center satellite wagering facility. • An anonymous visit was made to the Jockey Club to observe and better understand how wagering activities, particularly cash management, are handled at the facility. Findings The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that: 1. The Expo Association retains all revenues generated from all operations of the Event Center, as well as those from pari-mutuel wagering. Revenues generated by the Jockey Club are projected to increase if wagering is expanded with the passage of legislation legalizing wagering on sporting events.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
One reason behind wanting to change the composition of the Board appears to stem from the public’s concern over rate increases and service changes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Disseminate more information to the public about SBWMA’s operations, the role of its franchisees, and the rate setting process.
F2:
The organizational structure of SBWMA is a complex issue that the public does not well understand.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Request that Recology prepare a detailed billing statement for its customers that shows all charges imposed by Recology and itemizes all fees charged by the Member Agency.
F3:
The rates and the process of setting them are difficult to understand because so many variables, such as added city fees, come into play.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Continue to appoint only senior management staff to the Board as stipulated in the 2005 Agreement.
F4:
Customers would benefit from receiving itemized billing statements that show charges imposed by Recology and additional fees imposed by the relevant Member Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
If the Restated Agreement is amended to provide for a Board composed solely of elected officials, then put in place a technical advisory committee consisting of staff with technical experience in waste management. The Grand Jury recommends that the SBWMA Board do the following:
F5:
Elected officials already have sufficient influence in the decision-making process because the governing body of each Member Agency must approve major decisions such as contracts and rate increases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the SBWMA Board do the following:
Disseminate more information to the public about SBWMA’s operations, the role of its franchisees, and the rate setting process through a variety of media.
F6:
There is no demonstrable advantage to changing the Board composition from only senior management staff to only elected officials.
F7:
A technical advisory committee would be useful to a Board composed solely of elected officials if the Restated Agreement is amended to change SBWMA’s governance structure in this manner. 7 http://archives.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=1770056 (May 13, 2013). Interview with Task Force member. 9
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Under the California Education Code, a student can be suspended or expelled for bullying or cyber-bullying. In addition to the Education Code, certain schools have policies that address bullying.
F2:
Two districts out of 23 (Cabrillo Unified and San Mateo Union High School District) have a bullying policy and an enforcement process separate and distinct from harassment. (See Table “Survey Results”) 3
F3:
Five districts, (Bayshore, Hillsborough, La Honda-Pescadero, San Carlos and Woodside) do not have either a bullying policy or a harassment policy that includes bullying nor do they have an enforcement process in place. (See Table “Survey Results”)
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Facilitate a meeting, before the commencement of the next school year, of the representatives of every school district within the county in order to develop school policies that standardize bullying and enforcement processes across all schools (grades K-12) in San Mateo County. The 2010-2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that all K-12 School Districts:
R2:
Send a representative to the meeting referenced in recommendation #1 to participate in the goal of county wide standardized policies on bullying and the enforcement processes.
R3:
The bullying policy and its enforcement process should be summarized and communicated to students, parents/guardians and school staff. 4
F4:
Eighteen districts, including the two districts with separate bullying policies, have harassment or conduct policies that include bullying in some form but not necessarily cyber- bullying. (See Table “Survey Results”)
F5:
Thirteen districts have a specific enforcement process that covers bullying either separately or as a part of a harassment policy. (See Table “Survey Results”).
F6:
Ten districts responded that they have no enforcement process with respect to either bullying or harassment. (See Table “Survey Results”)
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Facilitate a meeting, before the commencement of the next school year, of the representatives of every school district within the county in order to develop school policies that standardize bullying and enforcement processes across all schools (grades K-12) in San Mateo County. The 2010-2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that all K-12 School Districts:
R2:
Send a representative to the meeting referenced in recommendation #1 to participate in the goal of county wide standardized policies on bullying and the enforcement processes.
R3:
The bullying policy and its enforcement process should be summarized and communicated to students, parents/guardians and school staff. 4
F7:
Many districts work through either a good conduct code or rely on administrative recourse for acts of harassment. (See Table “Survey Results”) Conclusions
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Before emancipation, San Mateo County’s Human Services Agency Adolescent Services (Adolescent Services) informs foster youth of the services available to them through its After Care program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Develop and implement a program to recruit and qualify mentors with the goal of providing a mentor for every foster youth who emancipates from foster care. For example, hold a Youth Mentor Fair; speak at PTA meetings, religious organizations and sporting events.
F2:
Adolescent Services requests foster youth before emancipation to identify “People who can help me with my (transitional) plan.” 14 The designated mentors may not have the ability or training to help the youth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Develop and implement a training program for mentors about the services that are available to the youth.
F3:
Adolescent Services works with Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) and the National Institute for Permanent Family Connectedness, Seneca Center to attempt to find permanent mentors for emancipated foster youth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Determine if the youth-designated mentors are qualified and understand their responsibility in that role. 5
F4:
Adolescent Services does not have a formal recruiting or training program for mentors of emancipated foster youth,
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Amend the contract with Youth and Family Enrichment Services (YFES) to require YFES to provide qualitative as well as statistical information on outreach to emancipated youth who are not receiving services.
F5:
Adolescent Services does provide some outreach to emancipated youth not currently participating in services through YFES. YFES reports only the number of contacts made for these youths.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Ensure that Adolescent Services Staff maintain logs and narratives of all contacts made with emancipated foster youth to ensure continuity if personnel change.
F6:
Though not required, Adolescent Services After Care Case Managers have begun keeping their own narrative record of conversations whenever contact is made with emancipated youth. Adolescent Services binder “Stepping Stones to My Future” 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Evaluate the pilot Binder Program to determine if it is an effective method to assist the emancipated youth in obtaining the services that are available.
F7:
Adolescent Services has a pilot program that provides young people in foster care with a binder, “Stepping Stones to My Future,” containing information on how to obtain housing, employment, and education after emancipation. This binder includes pages for the youth to record the mentor’s contact information and to store all legal documents. The County also has a Facebook page that provides useful information for emancipated youth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Evaluate Conclusions 1 through 5 listed above and the above listed Recommendations and determine if any additional actions are necessary to address the concerns that have been identified. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence County Manager’s Office DATE: August 25, 2011 BOARD MEETING DATE: September 13, 2011 SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING: None VOTE REQUIRED: Majority TO: Honorable Board of Supervisors FROM: David S. Boesch, County Manager SUBJECT: 2010-11 Grand Jury Response RECOMMENDATION: Accept this report containing the County’s response to the following 2010-11 Grand Jury report: Mentoring Emancipated Foster Youth.
F8:
Youth who emancipate from foster care are not obligated to maintain contact with Adolescent Services or provide updates of their contact information. Conclusions
F20114:
Emancipation is one of the two most critical times for children who are placed in foster care. The first critical time is when the youth is taken from his or her home to be placed in foster care. The second is the time when youth, who have not been placed in a permanent home, emancipate from foster care. Outcomes for youth emancipating from foster care are poor. One out of five foster youth in California ends up incarcerated and one in four becomes homeless within two years of aging out of the foster care system5. There are Federal, State and County programs to assist emancipated foster youth with the transition from foster care to adulthood. The County contracts with a private, non-profit agency, Youth and Family Enrichment Services6 (YFES) to provide After Care services for emancipated 2 AB 12 Assembly Bill – Bill Analysis Summary 3 February 2010 Directive for the 90-day Transition Plan, State of California Department of Social Services, letter from John A. Wagner, Director. Interview of Human Services personnel. Fostering Educational Success: Legislation and Policies to Promote Positive Educational Experiences for California’s Foster Youth John W. Gardner Center, November 2009. Youth and Family Enrichment Services will change its name to “Star Vista” on July 1, 2011. 2 foster youth. These services include: housing; case-management; utilities; phone and rental assistance; job readiness; food allowance; educational advocacy and support; post high school training; individual and group counseling; connections to family and community; an Independent Living (ILP) program; mentoring; apartment furnishings; manage emancipation fund for each foster youth; and post program/alumni assistance.7 Some of these services are available to emancipated youth until they reach the age of 24. YFES Case Managers attend Adolescent Collaborative Action Team meetings with the County, at least monthly, to provide information about: a) outreach result numbers; b) the services youth are participating in; and c) other agencies providing services to youth. YFES also encourages the other service providers to identify emancipated foster youth in their programs, for referral to the Case Managers. YFES is required to provide five hundred (500) youth outreach contacts per year. Contacts may be through mail, in person, or by telephone communication. Some youth may be contacted multiple times, others not at all. Recently, narrative accounts of contacts with emancipated youth have been initiated by Adolescent Services to maintain continuity when Case Managers change. Studies show that emancipated youth need a safe place to live, a high school diploma, health care, access to higher education, and quality employment in order to become self-sufficient adults.8 In addition, and perhaps most important, emancipated youth need a sustained commitment from a loving, safe and supportive adult or family to stay involved in their lives as long-term mentors.9 Former foster youth, who can rely on an ongoing, committed relationship with an adult fare better in navigating the challenges of early adulthood. They tend to persist in education, remain employed, and participate more fully in their communities as adults.10 However, merely knowing an adult to go to for support, advice and guidance does not provide an adequate safety net for youth aging out of care.11 The youth must have a “stable relationship with an adult who is proactive in their commitment to provide long-term support”.12 The public child welfare system alone cannot ensure that every youth will exit with a lifetime mentor. The California Youth Permanency Project study indicates that counties need to collaborate with all the parties who have a stake in ensuring the youth have this type of connection13. San Mateo County works with various agencies to assist foster youth in finding adult mentors. These include Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), a private, non-profit organization that educates adults to be mentors for foster youth and the National Institute for Permanent Family Connectedness (formerly known as the California Youth Permanency Project, a pilot program to help youth find a long-term, committed, and caring adult). Resolution No 070870, Agreement between the County of San Mateo and Youth and Family Enrichment Services, signed, June 22, 2010. California Connected by 25, Efforts to Address Permanency Needs of Transitioning Foster Youth, . Expanding Transitional Services for Emancipated Foster Youth, Children’s Advocacy Institute, University of California, San Diego School of Law, January 2007, page vii. California Connected by 25 Efforts to Address Permanency Needs of Transitioning Foster Youth, 11 Understanding Outcomes for Youth Aging out of Foster Care, California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership, Insights, Vol. III, 2010 12 ibid 13 National Institute for Permanent Family Connectedness, Seneca Center, www.senecacenter.org 3 Investigation The 2010-2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) contacted organizations that advocate for children and youth to find out how San Mateo County assists emancipated youth in obtaining help when needed. The Grand Jury interviewed key personnel at those organizations, reviewed their programs, and examined internal documents and tracking mechanisms. Those organizations were: • San Mateo County Adolescent Services Agency • Youth and Family Enrichment Services Agency (YFES) • Silicon Valley Community Foundation In addition, the Grand Jury: • Attended an informational meeting for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) • Reviewed research studies regarding the outcome for emancipated youth in the United States, California and San Mateo County • Reviewed information from the National Institute for Permanent Family Connectedness • Composed and mailed surveys to ten (10) emancipated youth soliciting feedback about post-emancipation services. Surveys included an addressed and stamped return envelope. No responses were received. Findings 1. Before emancipation, San Mateo County’s Human Services Agency Adolescent Services (Adolescent Services) informs foster youth of the services available to them through its After Care program.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Representatives of the crime lab, LEAs and the District Attorney’s Office stated they have a positive working relationship in matters relating to the collection, handling and processing of forensic evidence.
F2:
Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) and representatives of the District Attorney’s Office reported that the ASCLD/LAB accreditation gives confidence that high standard practices 5 and policies are in place at the crime lab. Additionally, independent accreditation attaches value and respect to courtroom testimony given by crime lab personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Maintain the current independent accreditation from the ASCLD/LAB.
F3:
The crime lab’s accreditation is current and corrects the one remaining deficiency listed in the 2006 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury summary report: “…obtain[ ] accreditation from ASCLD/LAB…”.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Maintain the current independent accreditation from the ASCLD/LAB.
F4:
The crime lab uses a laboratory management system (THEMIS) with the capacity to track workflow progress on Item Submittals. However, there is no on-line access for non- laboratory personnel to view the progress of Item Submittals or to estimate turnaround time. There is no ability within THEMIS at this time for the District Attorney’s Office to contribute/update critical scheduling information that could directly affect the progression and completion of item analyses and the availability of crime lab personnel for courtroom testimony.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Develop a process or capability that provides LEAs and the District Attorney’s Office with up-to-date information regarding the status of Item Submittals and estimated completion dates.
R4:
Develop a process or capability that allows the District Attorney’s Office to provide the crime lab with up-to-date information on trial schedules and the timing for needed analyses and expert witness testimony.
F5:
The crime lab does not publish estimates for turnaround times by individual item or category of request. Requests from LEAs or the District Attorney’s Office for expedited turnaround time are communicated by telephone to the Lab Director who then addresses such requests.
F6:
Internal cross-discipline training enables technical staff to be redirected as necessary to support other core crime lab services. This provides the crime lab with the capacity and flexibility to quickly address high-priority requests and/or changes in schedules.
F7:
In order to moderate expenses and efficiently utilize existing specialized skills, the crime lab uses lower-cost qualified interns for some specific tasks.
F8:
External training by the crime lab is offered both informally and by official request from an LEA. The crime lab will initiate training if it determines it will improve crime scene investigation and/or the collection of evidence or provide a better understanding of the crime lab’s workflow process, procedures or systems. Conclusions The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Provide current crime lab training to all interested LEAs and the District Attorney’s Office representatives at a minimum of twice a year.