Gran Jurado del Condado de San Mateo
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 (11)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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:
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
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”)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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”)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
9 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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,
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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…”.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
The Sheriff’s Department has a Use of Force policy that is different than the standardized policies of the other uniformed law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County. The Sheriff Department’s policy requires a deputy to make physical contact with subjects who are violent or threatening prior to the deployment and/or activation of the TASER device unless the deputy can identify and articulate a reason to move up the ladder to the TASER device use. Once engaged in physical contact, TASER use is limited to the “drive stun” mode.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Adopt either the Lexipol standard policies and decision toolbox approach, establish similar policies, or reestablish the prior Use of Force policy dated April 10, 2008.
F2:
Law Enforcement agencies often respond to calls outside their jurisdiction for mutual aid and joint task force operations, such as the San Mateo County Gang Task Force and Drug Task Force. In these joint operations the protocols for Taser use by the Sheriff are not the same as the other agencies in the county which also use TASERS.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Adopt either the Lexipol standard policies and decision toolbox approach, establish similar policies, or reestablish the prior Use of Force policy dated April 10, 2008.
F3:
Of the 18 uniformed police agencies using TASER devices in San Mateo County that the Grand Jury reviewed, the primary provider of Use of Force policies and TASER use 8 Many interviewees stated that “the TASER device is a use of force tool,” that should be used appropriately just like any other tool available to officers. 4 policies is Lexipol, LLC. Fifteen cities, BART and the CHP use Lexipol, or have policies that are similar, if not identical, to Lexipol.
F4:
All agencies using TASER devices require training prior to the issuance of a TASER to individual officers; require annual or more frequent retraining; require a “Use of Force Report” when a TASER device is activated;9 and require medical evaluation for a subject who has been “tased.”
F5:
No agency requires reporting when a TASER device has been used in the “light up” deployment mode, but not activated.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Add a “deployment only” category to all Use of Force Reports and track the effect that this “light up” mode has in assisting deputies to gain and maintain control over subjects.
F6:
No agency requires that an officer who has been issued a TASER device actually keep it on his/ her person. The TASER device may be kept secured in the patrol car for those officers on patrol duty.
F7:
The cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto are the only San Mateo County police agencies that do not supply TASER devices to their officers and therefore TASERS are not available as an alternative to lethal force. Conclusions The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R3:
Require uniformed deputies to have TASER devices available to the same extent that the officers are required to have a firearm available for use. The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto:
R4:
Require uniformed officers to have TASER devices available to the same extent that the officers are required to have a firearm available for use. The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of all cities other than Menlo Park and East Palo Alto:
F8:
The use of a TASER device, before being required to physically subdue a subject, would result in fewer injuries to both officers and subjects. When an officer goes “hands on” with a subject, in the form of the use of a baton, flashlight prod, or other device that can cause physical injury, it places the officer and the subject into a position where physical injury is more likely.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
A 2001 pre-election research study commissioned by the College District determined that the shared use of sports fields and recreation facilities by students and the community would be well received.
F2:
Market research commissioned by the College District in 2007 to determine the viability of opening a campus fitness center to the public indicated it would be well received. 3
F3:
College District administrators stated to the Grand Jury that they intended to design/construct a multi-use “wellness/fitness” center before the Board of Trustees placed Measure A on the ballot.
F4:
Bond Measure A does not list a “wellness/fitness” center in its project list, nor does it refer to using the College District facilities for public/private partnership or enterprise activities. It does refer to a "Workforce Development Center".
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
Communicate clearly to the public and to the BOC the intended uses of bond funds prior to and during the course of expenditures, particularly when major projects are not identified specifically in the bond project list contained in the ballot measure.
R2:
Ensure that all bond funds are spent in compliance with the project list in Measure A.
R5:
Create and publish on the College District website a detailed and specific list of the remaining projects to be funded by Measure A bond funds and update it on a regular basis. 5
F5:
Deteriorating economic conditions between the passage of Measure A in 2005 and the commencement of construction of the Health and Wellness Center created an emphasis on programs and activities that could generate revenue for the College District.
F6:
The minutes of the BOC do not document any objections by the BOC to any of the expenditures by the College District from Bond Measure A funds.
F7:
Several members of the BOC exceeded their statutory limit of two consecutive two-year terms (4-year maximum). On October 13, 2010, this was corrected by the appointment of eight new members.
F8:
The BOC has no representative of a bona fide taxpayer group as required by State Law, [California Education Code 15282(a)], despite a reasonable effort by the College District to identify and appoint such a member.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Regularly, Identify members of the Bond Oversight Committee in the official meeting minutes by their term and affiliation specified in California Education Code 15282(a).
F9:
The BOC membership remained substantially the same for both Bond Measure A (2005) and Measure C (2001). The BOC was chaired for seven years by a former senior administrator of the College District. The members of the BOC are selected by the College District.
F10:
The BOC did not issue an annual report for the year 2009 but did submit a report for 2010. Conclusions
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Require that the Bond Oversight Committee publish timely reports to inform the public regarding the use of bond funds on the District web site and issue a press release as new reports become available.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
The Board of Supervisors resolved in Resolution no. 069650 dated September 9, 2008 that “… all future [compact and midsize county] vehicle purchases will be hybrid models or other fuel-efficient models that are estimated by the manufacturer to achieve a minimum of 30 miles per gallon.”
F2:
In the County of San Mateo FY 2010-2012 Recommended Budget for Vehicle and Equipment Services, a program objective was established to: “Increase the average fuel 2 economy to 30 miles per gallon by 2012 for midsize and compact vehicles…” This guideline was incorporated into the purchasing policies of Fleet Maintenance.
F3:
There are conventional powered compact and intermediate sedans that meet California’s "green" designation and 30 miles per gallon (mpg) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate.3 These vehicles achieve the mileage and emission requirements established by the Board of Supervisors and are listed below: 2011 Conventionally Powered Models Chevrolet Honda Cobalt Cruze Malibu Civic Accord Fit Ford Toyota Fusion Focus Fiesta Camry Corolla Yaris
F4:
In 2008, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors resolved that 32 percent of vehicles purchased should be fuel efficient defined as Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle (ULEV), Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle (PZEV) or Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV).4
F5:
The California Air Resources Board reports that “Gasoline vehicles meeting PZEV emission standards sometimes have even lower emissions than hybrid or alternate fuel vehicles”5. Honda, Ford, Toyota and Chevrolet have vehicles that are certified PZEV. These vehicles have four-cylinder conventional power trains and exceed 30 mpg fuel economy.
F6:
Since 2002, the Public Works Department has purchased 200 compact sedans with a hybrid power train. All hybrid compact sedans purchased were either Toyota Prius or Honda Civic. In addition, 7 hybrid powered Ford Escape SUVs were purchased between model years 2007 through 2010.
F7:
According to 2011 vehicle retail stickers, the base retail price of a Toyota Prius with hybrid system cost $7,280 more than a comparably-sized non-hybrid Toyota Corolla. The Honda Civic Hybrid cost $5,395 more than a non-hybrid Honda Civic LX.6 Federal Tax Credits are available for non-governmental buyers. Since the county does not pay income taxes, the credit is of no benefit. Based on standards established by California Assembly Bill 32 and the California Air Resources Board, 4 San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Resolution no. 069650 dated Sept. 9, 2008. Fact Sheet: 2003-11-04 California Environmental Protection Agency, Nov. 4, 2003. Dealerships visited were Putnam Toyota, Putnam Chevrolet, Mike Harvey Honda, and Towne Ford. Comparable Hybrid and Conventional Compact Models2 Toyota Conventional Hybrid Hybrid Cost Model Corolla Prius Over (Under) Base Price $ 16,520 $ 23,800 $ 7,280 EPA Mileage Range 26-35 mpg 51-48 mpg 25-13 mpg Engine Type PZEV PZEV n/a Honda Conventional Hybrid Hybrid Cost Model Civic LX Civic Over (Under) Base Price $ 18,555 $ 23,950 $ 5,395 EPA Mileage Range 25-36 mpg 40-43 mpg 15-7 mpg Engine Type PZEV PZEV n/a
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Commission a new study of the total cost of ownership, including depreciation, comparing hybrid and other alternative fuel vehicles with conventional “green” vehicles.
R2:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Utilize the results of the new study to revise, if necessary, the current vehicle purchasing policy. While there are many considerations, any decision should be based on a full understanding of all costs involved.
F8:
Throughout the 7 year life of current hybrids in operation, model year 2002 through 2008, the depreciation cost (original purchase price less resale value) of hybrid cars and SUVs exceeded the depreciation cost of conventional powered vehicles. The hybrid depreciation cost for 2003 model vehicles with mileage accumulation to 99,000 miles ranges from $3,970 to $4,465 per vehicle more than a comparable conventional powered vehicle7. Similar depreciation costs continue for all model years, 2002 through 2010. (See Exhibit A)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Commission a new study of the total cost of ownership, including depreciation, comparing hybrid and other alternative fuel vehicles with conventional “green” vehicles.
R2:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Utilize the results of the new study to revise, if necessary, the current vehicle purchasing policy. While there are many considerations, any decision should be based on a full understanding of all costs involved.
F9:
The depreciated value (salvage value) predicted in the 2003 Operations Review Report for compact hybrid vehicles traded in seven years after being put into operation, were higher than current Kelley Blue Book listings. The report used a salvage value of $6,524 for vehicles purchased in 2003 and traded in 2010. The January-March 2011 Kelley Blue Book reports an expected trade in value of $5,025. Thus the report may have overestimated the trade-in value by $1,509 or 23 percent more than each vehicle was worth.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Commission a new study of the total cost of ownership, including depreciation, comparing hybrid and other alternative fuel vehicles with conventional “green” vehicles.
R2:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Utilize the results of the new study to revise, if necessary, the current vehicle purchasing policy. While there are many considerations, any decision should be based on a full understanding of all costs involved.
F10:
According to the local auction vendors, for compact and midsize vehicles, the salvage value decreases rapidly after 100,000 miles. Conclusions
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Develop a new policy for vehicle retirement based on mileage accumulation as the primary determinant rather than the current policy of 100,000 miles or 7 years, whichever comes first. Exhibit A Compact Conventional and Hybrid Vehicles Base Trade In Net Cost Price Value (est) Savings from Year Mfg Type Model $ $ Conventional 2002 Toyota Hybrid Prius 20,480 4,225 Conventional Corolla S 14,073 3,400 Price/Trade In Value Difference 6,407 825 5,582 Honda Hybrid Insight 21,740 5,325 Conventional Civic LX 15,550 3,425 Price/Trade In Value Difference 6,190 1,900 4,290 2003 Toyota Hybrid Prius 20,730 5,025 Conventional Corolla S 15,165 3,925 Price/Trade In Value Difference 5,565 1,100 4,465 Honda Hybrid Civic 19,990 4,500 Conventional Civic LX 15,670 4,150 Price/Trade In Value Difference 4,320 350 3,970 2004 Toyota Hybrid Prius 20,510 6,600 Conventional Corolla S 15,030 5,175 Price/Trade In Value Difference 5,480 1,425 4,055 Honda Hybrid Civic 20,140 5,400 Conventional Civic LX 15,850 5,000 Price/Trade In Value Difference 4,290 400 3,890 2005 Toyota Hybrid Prius 21,515 8,175 Conventional Corolla S 15,430 5,750 Price/Trade In Value Difference 6,085 2,425 3,660 Honda Hybrid Civic 20,315 6,725 Conventional Civic LX 16,025 6,375 Price/Trade In Value Difference 4,290 350 3,940 2006 Toyota Hybrid Prius 22,305 10,000 Conventional Corolla S 15,755 6,650 Price/Trade In Value Difference 6,550 3,350 3,200 Honda Hybrid Civic 23,195 10,550 Conventional Civic LX 17,555 9,325 Price/Trade In Value Difference 5,640 1,225 4,415 2007 Toyota Hybrid Prius 22,755 11,600 Conventional Corolla S 15,830 8,000 Price/Trade In Value Difference 6,925 3,600 3,325 Honda Hybrid Civic 23,195 10,550 Conventional Civic LX 17,555 9,325 Price/Trade In Value Difference 5,640 1,225 4,415 2008 Toyota Hybrid Prius 22,985 13,000 Conventional Corolla S 16,110 8,775 6 Compact Conventional and Hybrid Vehicles Base Trade In Net Cost Price Value (est) Savings from Year Mfg Type Model $ $ Conventional Price/Trade In Value Difference 6,875 4,225 2,650 Honda Hybrid Civic 23,235 12,050 Conventional Civic LX 17,595 10,600 Price/Trade In Value Difference 5,640 1,450 4,190 2009 Toyota Hybrid Prius 24,035 14,000 Conventional Corolla S 17,310 8,900 Price/Trade In Value Difference 6,725 5,100 1,625 Honda Hybrid Civic 24,320 13,300 Conventional Civic LX 18,125 11,550 Price/Trade In Value Difference 6,195 1,750 4,445 2010 Toyota Hybrid Prius 22,150 16,450 Conventional Corolla S 17,470 10,200 Price/Trade In Value Difference 4,680 6,250 (1,570) Honda Hybrid Civic 24,510 14,350 Conventional Civic LX 18,315 12,550 Price/Trade In Value Difference 6,195 1,800 4,395 SUV Conventional and Hybrid Vehicles Net Cost Savings Trade In from Base Price Value (est) Convention Year Mfg Type Model $ $ al 2005 Ford Hybrid Escape 28,595 8,575 Conventional Escape 22,045 6,800 Price/Trade In Value Difference 6,550 1,775 4,775 2006 Ford Hybrid Escape 29,140 10,400 Conventional Escape 22,435 8,425 Price/Trade In Value Difference 6,705 1,975 4,730 2007 Ford Hybrid Escape 27,925 12,350 Conventional Escape 22,515 10,100 Price/Trade In Value Difference 5,410 2,250 3,160 2008 Ford Hybrid Escape 27,680 15,750 Conventional Escape 22,175 12,800 Price/Trade In Value Difference 5,505 2,950 2,555 2009 Ford Hybrid Escape 30,750 17,750 7 Compact Conventional and Hybrid Vehicles Base Trade In Net Cost Price Value (est) Savings from Year Mfg Type Model $ $ Conventional Conventional Escape 23,370 14,350 Price/Trade In Value Difference 7,380 3,400 3,980 8