San Mateo County Grand Jury
2011-2012
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 (15)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES The 2012-2013 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury (2013 Grand Jury) reviewed the Final Reports issued by the 2011-2012 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury (2012 Grand Jury) and the formal responses filed by recipients. This practice provides continuity and permits each successive Grand Jury to track the responses made by the affected agencies to the Recommendations of each Final Report. The 2012 Grand Jury issued 12 Final Reports that required responses from a total of 28 individual elected bodies or agencies (Respondents). The 2012 Grand Jury made 177 Recommendations. Most responses stated that that a Recommendation had been implemented, would be implemented, or would not be implemented. Ten Respondents stated that further study of 38 Recommendations would be required. The 2013 Grand Jury wrote "follow-up" letters to these ten Respondents (see below). After including the responses to these follow-up letters, the following final results were tabulated: NUMBER PERCENT OF RESPONSE TOTAL Implemented (Fully or Partially) 96 54% Will Implement 25 14% Requires Further Study As noted above, ten Respondents indicated that "further study" of 38 Recommendations would be required. California Penal Code Section 9333.05(b)(3) provides in this circumstance that these Respondents must conclude such study within "six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report." No Respondent stating that further study of a Recommendation was required updated its response within this six-month period. On March 20, 2013, the Grand Jury mailed follow-up letters requesting updates from the 10 Respondents that stated "further study" (or its equivalent) was required. The letter requested these 10 Respondents to update their responses. Of the Respondents who replied to these letters, seven Recommendations had been implemented, ten Recommendations will be implemented, and seven will not. These results are included in the table above. The 14 "further study" responses noted in the table above result from the failure of the following Respondents to reply to the follow-up letter: Emergency Services Council, Pacifica, San Mateo County (regarding one Final Report), and the Sheriff's Office (regarding two separate Final Reports).2 The Grand Jury did not attempt to contact these agencies that did not fulfill their statutory responsibility by providing the Grand Jury with updated information regarding their "will study" responses. RECOMMENDATIONS Over all, the Recommendations made last term were constructive and the 2011-2012 Grand Jury had a productive and relevant year. We do not consider additional actions as necessary for any of the Final Reports. A note is in order regarding future Summary of Responses to Grand Jury Final Reports. The 2013 Civil Grand Jury changed the format of its reports. Previous years' reports contained sections labeled "Findings," "Conclusions," and "Recommendations." The "Findings" in these reports were statements of facts. The "Conclusions" and "Recommendations" were just that - conclusions and recommendations. In order to conform the Grand Jury reports to those issued by most other California counties, the 2013 Grand Jury adopted the format recommended by the California Grand Jury Association. This format includes the "facts" in the "Discussion" section. Conclusions are now contained in the "Findings" section. Recommendations remain in the "Recommendations" section. Future Summary of Reports should report on responses to the Findings (formerly "Conclusions") and Recommendations of Final Reports. The 2013 Grand Jury opted not to report on the "Findings," i.e. facts, recited in the 2012 Grand Jury Final Reports. Recipients of the 2012 Grand Jury Final Reports were not asked to respond to the "Conclusions" contained in those reports. CLOSING In large measure, the responses received to the Final Reports were well considered and thoughtful. One improvement to be considered would be to require timely follow-up by Respondents when activity and decision-making is deferred. In most cases, when future study and/or action are promised, the Grand Jury is left unaware whether such action is actually taken and to what result. The 2013 Grand Jury thanks all Respondents for careful consideration of the Grand Jury's work on behalf of San Mateo County residents. San Mateo County responded to two letters regarding two Final Reports. The Sheriff's Office responded to one letter regarding one Final Report. REPORT TITLE RESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS AGENCIES Implementation Status Number of Response Implemented Will Implement Will Study Will Not Implement Recommendations Still No Emergency Yes 2 - Slated for Emergency 2 Action Plans for Services Council consideration at Levee Failures 9/20/12 meeting In San Mateo 3 San Mateo County Yes 1 1 1 County Board of Supervisors 3 3 East Palo Alto City Yes Council 2 Foster City City 3 Yes 1 Council Redwood City City 2 Yes 3 1 Council San Carlos City 3 Yes 3 Council 3 2 San Mateo City Yes 1 Council South San Yes 3 3 Francisco City Council 7 - Slated for San Mateo County Yes 7 consideration at Sheriff 9/20/12 meeting 3 Controlling the San Mateo County Yes 2 - Partial 1 County's Manager Escalating Retirement Costs Can an Electronic San Mateo County Yes 2 2 Monitoring Sheriff Program for Pre- Trial Detainees Help to Reduce Jail Overcrowding? Food-Borne 7 2 San Mateo County Yes 4 1 Illness: A Moving Manager Target Does San Mateo Atherton Town 2 Yes 2 County Need 13 Council Separate Police REPORT TITLE RESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS AGENCIES Implementation Status Number of Response Implemented Will Implement Will Study Will Not Implement Recommendations 2 East Palo Alto City Yes 2 Council Colma Town Yes 2 2 Council 2 Daly City City 2 Yes Council Foster City City 2 2 Yes Council Half Moon Bay City 2 2 - Contracts with Yes Council San Mateo Hillsborough Town 2 Yes 2 Council San Mateo County Yes 1 1 Board of Supervisors Brisbane City 2 2 Yes Council 2 2 Burlingame City Yes Council 2 Pacifica City Yes 1 1 Council Menlo Park City 2 Yes 2 (1 partial) Council Millbrae City 2 2 - Contracts with Yes Council San Mateo Portola Valley 2 2 - Contracts with Yes Town Council San Mateo 2 Redwood City City 1 Yes 1 Council 2 San Bruno City Yes 1 1 Council San Carlos City 2 2 Yes Council San Mateo City Yes 2 1 1 Council REPORT TITLE RESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS AGENCIES Implementation Status Response Number of Implemented Will Implement Will Study Will Not Implement Recommendations Council San Mateo San Mateo County 3 Court and Yes 3 Community Office of Education Schools 2 2 The County, San San Mateo County Yes 4 Carlos and Cal Board of Fire, A Missed Supervisors 2 Opportunity? Coastside Fire Yes 2 Protection District Colma Fire District 2 1 - Currently no Yes 1 union representative associated with Fire District Menlo Park Fire 2 2 Yes Protection District 2 Atherton Town Yes 2 - Not included in Council study, lack of knowledge concerning recommendations Belmont City Yes 2 2 Council Brisbane City 2 1 1 - Will be studied if Yes Council city determines the need 1 - Not Applicable to Burlingame City Yes 6 5 (qualified) Council Burlingame Colma Town 2 Yes 2 - Not applicable to Colma Council Daly City City 2 2 - Current Yes Council arrangement satisfactory, will consider if circumstances change East Palo Alto City 2 2 Yes Council REPORT TITLE RESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS AGENCIES Implementation Status Response Number of Implemented Will Implement Will Study Will Not Implement Recommendations Council disagree, pending representation of "fiscally qualified cities" Half Moon Bay City 2 2 - No Yes Council recommendations are relevant to the City Hillsborough Town Yes 2 2 Council Millbrae City 2 2 Yes Council Pacifica City 2 2 - Not currently Yes Council applicable to City Portola Valley 6 6 Yes Town Council Redwood City City 2 2 Yes Council San Bruno City No Council San Mateo City 2 2 Yes Council 2 2 South San Yes Francisco City Council Woodside Town 2 2 - Not currently Yes Council applicable to Town Yes 2 2 Woodside Fire Protection District Public Pool Safety: San Mateo County 9 5 3 - Recommendation 1 - Excess Yes The Bottom Line Board of 6 may require constraints on several years for Supervisors inspectors complete system San Mateo County 1 - Feasibility of San Mateo County Yes 1 Office of Board of Schedule, and Cost Emergency Supervisors analysis San Mateo County Services: Post-San 5 3 - OES follows Yes REPORT TITLE RESPONDING RECOMMENDATIONS AGENCIES Implementation Status Number of Will Implement Will Study Will Not Implement Response Implemented Recommendations process issues, JIC structure preempts OĖS Coastside Fire Coastside Fire Yes 5 3 1 1 - No consensus on Protection District - Protection District board Going Backward or Forward? Yes 3 - Further analysis 1 - The Annual San Mateo County 4 Flooding of Board of required, no date Considered not Pescadero Creek provided feasible Supervisors Road Whooping Cough San Mateo County Yes 3 3 - Agreement to Immunization Board of post immunization Rates - A San Supervisors rates on the web Mateo County Success Story Issued: June 17, 2013
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The Butano Creek overflows its banks and floods Pescadero Creek Road and surrounding farmland each year during periods of rains.
F2:
The flooding of Pescadero Creek Road at Butano Creek Bridge creates a dangerous setting and, when impassable, delays public safety access and virtually isolates a Pescadero community of approximately 650 people.
F3:
Silt accumulation, vegetation overgrowth, and debris have reduced flow capacity of Butano Creek and increased road flooding risk.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Immediately direct the County Department of Public Works to remove excess silt and clear vegetation overgrowth and debris from as much of the Butano Creek as necessary to eliminate the road flooding. The work should be completed as soon as possible, and in all circumstances before October 1, 2012, the start of the 2012-13 rainy season. The intended result of this work is to prevent flooding of Butano Creek onto and around Pescadero Creek Road and farmlands.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Direct the San Mateo County Department of Public Works to periodically clean new silt, vegetation overgrowth, and debris from Butano Creek as needed to maintain flows and eliminate the recurrence of Pescadero Creek Road flooding. Attachment A: Silt-up Profiles of Butano Creek Bridge This image shows the profile of the Butano Creek streambed below the Pescadero Creek Road Bridge. Early surveys show the streambed some 12 feet below the bottom of the bridge. Today, the bridge clears the silted and debris-filled creek bottom by only 2 feet. Attachment B: San Mateo County Public Works Permitting Flowchart This flowchart, prepared by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works, illustrates the path and sequence for obtaining permit approval for relatively straightforward projects. It does not show the additional entities that, as a matter of course, provide technical input and guidance to the indicated permitters. Attachment C: NOAA / Fisheries Letter This letter from Mr. Butler of NOAA/Marine Fisheries, dated November 24, 2010, summarizes the silt-up of the Butano Creek streambed and its association with the annual Pescadero Road flooding. It acknowledges the potential interim benefits of dredging. It urges the County to coordinate with stakeholders to investigate solutions and provides guidance and offers support in overcoming permitting issues. (highlights supplied). 10
F4:
Butano Creek has not been thoroughly cleared of accumulated silt, vegetation overgrowth, or debris for decades. 5
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Immediately direct the County Department of Public Works to remove excess silt and clear vegetation overgrowth and debris from as much of the Butano Creek as necessary to eliminate the road flooding. The work should be completed as soon as possible, and in all circumstances before October 1, 2012, the start of the 2012-13 rainy season. The intended result of this work is to prevent flooding of Butano Creek onto and around Pescadero Creek Road and farmlands.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Direct the San Mateo County Department of Public Works to periodically clean new silt, vegetation overgrowth, and debris from Butano Creek as needed to maintain flows and eliminate the recurrence of Pescadero Creek Road flooding. Attachment A: Silt-up Profiles of Butano Creek Bridge This image shows the profile of the Butano Creek streambed below the Pescadero Creek Road Bridge. Early surveys show the streambed some 12 feet below the bottom of the bridge. Today, the bridge clears the silted and debris-filled creek bottom by only 2 feet. Attachment B: San Mateo County Public Works Permitting Flowchart This flowchart, prepared by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works, illustrates the path and sequence for obtaining permit approval for relatively straightforward projects. It does not show the additional entities that, as a matter of course, provide technical input and guidance to the indicated permitters. Attachment C: NOAA / Fisheries Letter This letter from Mr. Butler of NOAA/Marine Fisheries, dated November 24, 2010, summarizes the silt-up of the Butano Creek streambed and its association with the annual Pescadero Road flooding. It acknowledges the potential interim benefits of dredging. It urges the County to coordinate with stakeholders to investigate solutions and provides guidance and offers support in overcoming permitting issues. (highlights supplied). 10
F5:
California State Parks and Recreation, beginning in 1993, made extensive modifications in the Marsh to re-establish a “natural ecological environment.” Some modifications have not been maintained (e.g., flood gates) and, according to several interviewees, are presently ineffective and have made road-flooding conditions worse.
F6:
Solutions proposed to San Mateo County Public Works to correct the flooding include a raised roadway or a causeway, over-road pumping, dredging, and brush and debris clearance. The County has not adopted any of these suggestions.
F7:
San Mateo County is responsible for maintaining Pescadero Creek Road and its 30-foot right of way and therefore for correcting the road-flooding situation.
F8:
Multiple agencies, each with its own specific interests, might normally have to approve or advise on approval of permits to make changes that would resolve the flooding problem. Currently, any one agency could stop the process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Review the NOAA (NMFS) Nov 24, 2010 letter (See, Attachment B), and consult with NOAA and the San Mateo County RCD on strategies for expediting permit approvals, if any are required, to accomplish the work described in Recommendation 1.
F9:
Multiple sections of California and federal law, e.g. California Fish and Game Code §1601, CEQA, CA Gov't Code §21060.3, and Cal. Code of Regs. §15269(d), provide for emergency exceptions to the permitting restrictions that normally apply to stream bed changes and road repairs. These may be available to Public Works to expedite actions that would eliminate Pescadero Road flooding.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Review the NOAA (NMFS) Nov 24, 2010 letter (See, Attachment B), and consult with NOAA and the San Mateo County RCD on strategies for expediting permit approvals, if any are required, to accomplish the work described in Recommendation 1.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
If needed to accomplish Recommendation Number 1, use San Mateo County's authority under the various emergency provisions of California and/or federal law to take actions mitigating flooding to protect life or property.
F10:
The Grand Jury is unaware that the County has ever applied for, or been denied, any permit(s) for actions that would address the road flooding.
F11:
A November 24, 2010 letter from the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) North Central Coast Office to California State Parks and San Mateo County Public Works expressed the view that the permits required to address the road flooding should not be a hindrance and that “NMFS stands ready to work with State Parks and the County toward the shared goal of resource protections while improving the safety of Pescadero Road.”
F12:
The Resource Conservation District has funding to explore solutions to environmental quality issues in the Pescadero Marsh ecosystem and intends to address Pescadero Creek Road flooding as part of its efforts. Its time frame, however, does not address the immediate need. Conclusions The Grand Jury concludes:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
25 findings
F1:
All City and County dam owners fulfilled their commitments in response to the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury report.
F2:
Foster City, Redwood City, San Mateo and the County of San Mateo worked with FEMA to bring some levees up to FEMA standards to meet insurance guidelines and thus avoid the classification of surrounding areas as floodplains.
F3:
There is a lack of consistency and varying amounts of detail among the EAPs completed by the cities.
F4:
The San Mateo County Levee Status from FEMA dated March 12, 2012 shows levees no longer exist in the cities of Belmont, Burlingame, and Pacifica, due to reclassifications and removal. Regarding the County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES):
F5:
The OES does not address levee failures in the County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).
F6:
The OES stated it does not have adequate resources to develop an EOP for levees, despite its commitment to do so in 2007.
F7:
In 2008, the OES Director applied to the California Emergency Management Agency for a Hazard Mitigation grant to fund continuing work on dams and levees. This application was denied.
F8:
The OES did not request or receive copies of EAPs for levees from any of the affected cities. Regarding the Emergency Services Council:
F9:
The Emergency Services Council provided OES with funding in fiscal year 2007-2008 that resulted in the creation of a dam database, inundation maps of hazardous dams, and a 7 section on dams in the County EOP. No additional funding has been provided to complete the committed work on levees.
F10:
The ESC adopted a resolution in 2007 requesting all jurisdictions for dams or levees to cooperate with the OES to develop credible Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for responding to dam and levee failure. The resolution did not contain a required due date for the development of the EAPs and nothing has been done in the last 5 years.11 Regarding the County of San Mateo:
F11:
The County of San Mateo shares responsibility with San Carlos and Redwood City for the levees located in the vicinity of the San Carlos Airport.
F12:
The County Public Works Department did not develop an EAP for levees located in the vicinity of San Carlos Airport. Regarding the Cities of: Burlingame
F13:
Burlingame filed a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan with the Association of Bay Area Governments to have its levees removed as a review indicated these were not levees. East Palo Alto
F14:
East Palo Alto developed an EAP for levees in January 2011, which did not meet its committed timeline. It was not submitted to OES until January 2012.
F15:
FEMA records dated March 12, 2012 do not indicate the existence of any levees in East Palo Alto, which contradicts East Palo Alto’s understanding that it is responsible for a levee. According to FEMA, this discrepancy exists because the City of East Palo Alto failed to respond to the Provisional Accreditation Letter regarding requirements for flood insurance. Foster City
F16:
After receiving the Grand Jury request letter of December 20, 2011 Foster City completed an EAP dated January 12, 2012, which did not meet its committed timeline or was it submitted to OES. Resolution (undated) attached to the letter to Honorable John L. Grandsaert, Re: 2006-07 Grand Jury Report: Emergency Planning for Dam or Levee Failures in San Mateo County, from Rose Jacobs Gibson, President, San Mateo Board of Supervisors and Chair, San Mateo County Emergency Services Council, September 26, 2007. Pacifica
F17:
Pacifica responded to both the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Recommendations and the 2011- 2012 Grand Jury status request letter stating that it had no dams or levees. The levee was removed as part of the Army Corp of Engineers’ San Pedro Creek and Wetland Ecosystem Restoration Project in 2000. San Carlos
F18:
San Carlos reported it has no record of receiving the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report’s
F19:
The Superior Court of San Mateo County records could not confirm that San Carlos received a copy of the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report.
F20:
San Carlos did not develop or submit an EAP for its levees. South San Francisco
F21:
South San Francisco responded to the 2006-2007 and 2011-2012 Grand Jury status request letters stating it has no dams or levees in its jurisdiction according to the FEMA Map Modernization Regional Manager in 2007.
F22:
According to FEMA's list of levees in San Mateo County, dated March 12, 2012, there is one levee in South San Francisco.
F23:
South San Francisco has not reconciled this discrepancy with FEMA.
F24:
FEMA has categorized the levee in South San Francisco as De- Accredited. The levee does not meet flood protection criteria; therefore, flood protection insurance to corresponding adjacent areas may be required.
F25:
The City of South San Francisco did not develop or submit an EAP for its disputed levee. Conclusions The Grand Jury concludes:
Additional Recommendations
30
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Provide the resources needed to enable the Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) to fulfill, by December 31, 2012, all OES commitments made in response to the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury report with respect to levees. (See, Attachment 3.)
R2:
Establish timelines and monitor progress of OES in fulfilling those commitments. The Grand Jury recommends to the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County and the city councils of East Palo Alto, Foster City, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, and South San Francisco that each of them:
R3:
Within a timeframe negotiated with OES, create, review, and update EAPs for levees in conformance to specific San Mateo County OES guidelines. These EAPs will include at a minimum: • A list of three or more separate telephone contacts to ensure at least one responsible official or responder is made aware of the emergency • A protocol setting out actions that will be undertaken to mitigate danger during an emergency 10 • A copy of the most recent inspection report on levee integrity
R4:
Forward updated EAPs to OES to be followed by annual updates.
R5:
Direct the relevant city departments to work with the County Public Works Director and FEMA to identify, evaluate, and report annually on the integrity of levees in the County. The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriff direct the Office of Emergency Services to:
R6:
Immediately take proactive steps to obtain required funding from the Emergency Services Council in order to conduct all recommended work pertaining to levee Emergency Action Plans.
R7:
Within 60 days negotiate a timeline and develop a plan with the affected cities to complete all commitments.
R8:
Consistent with the timeline, work with the San Mateo County Public Works Department to ensure FEMA and the cities of South San Francisco and East Palo Alto have agreement on the levees for which they are responsible.
R9:
Consistent with the timeline, develop and communicate to the affected cities the specific requirements and guidelines for the development of credible, consistent, comprehensive Emergency Action Plans . These requirements are to include at a minimum: • A list of three or more separate telephone contacts to ensure at least one responsible official or responder is made aware of the emergency • A protocol setting out actions that will be undertaken to mitigate danger during an emergency • A copy of the most recent inspection report on levee integrity
R10:
Consistent with the timeline, develop a tracking and follow up system to assess timely receipt of levee owners’ EAPs and yearly updates.
R11:
Work with the appropriate responsible city and County departments and FEMA to acquire all necessary information to assess risk and develop EAPs for levee emergencies.
R12:
Incorporate this information into the countywide Emergency Operations Plan by December 31, 2012. Attachment 1 Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for Levee Failure in San Mateo County: Response to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Investigation and Current Status EAP for EAP Completed Levees: Sent to Completed Responsible EAP for met Due OES/HS Yearly Status a/o 2/1/12 Entity Levees? Date of by Updates? 3/31/08? 3/31/08? County of San Mateo – Public No Not met No No Works Dept. No budget to assist cities to develop OES N/A N/A - N/A EAPs and to incorporate these plans into a countywide plan (EOP) for levees. Belmont N/A N/A N/A N/A Burlingame N/A N/A N/A N/A EAP for levee completed Jan 2011. East Palo Alto Yes Not met No No EAP sent to OES in Jan. 2012. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan added Foster City Yes Not met No No to EOP in Nov 2011. Levee Failure Plan completed Jan 12, 2012 Hillsborough N/A N/A N/A N/A Pacifica N/A N/A N/A N/A Redwood City Yes Not met No No EOP completed 2008-2009. San Carlos has no record of San Carlos No Not met No No receiving or replying to the 2006-07 Grand Jury Report EOP for dam/levee failure San Mateo Yes Not met No No completed Nov 5, 2007 EAP’s completed in 2010. South San Francisco states it has no South San No Not met No No levees. FEMA’s Mar 12, 2012 List Francisco of Levees shows one levee in South San Francisco. Note: N/A indicates there are no levees in this city, per FEMA’s List of Levees in San Mateo County, dated March 12, 2012 12 Attachment 213 Emergency Services Council Mission Statement The mission of the Area Office of Emergency Services is to provide planning, preparedness, public information, training, and Federal/State intergovernmental emergency services coordination for the twenty cities/ towns within San Mateo County, as well as for County government, to enable them to respond to, minimize the impact of, and recover from a major emergency, disaster, or homeland security incident with the least possible loss of life or property. The Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Program provides a team of trained Hazardous Materials specialists who respond to and manage HazMat emergencies and potential bio-terrorism threats throughout San Mateo County on a seven-day, twenty- four hour basis. Member Roster Current Membership Title Appointed Expires Representing Adrienne Tissier Member 01/08/13 Board of Supervisors Charles Marsala Member Atherton David Braunstein Member Belmont Cy Bologoff Member Brisbane Terri Nagel Member Burlingame Diana Colvin Member Colma Maggie Gomez Member Daly City Ruben Abrica Member East Palo Alto Pam Frisella Member Foster City Marina Fraser Member Half Moon Bay Jay Benton Member Hillsborough Peter Ohtaki Member Menlo Park Marge Calapietro Member Millbrae Sue Digre Member Pacifica John Richards Member Portola Valley Ian Bain Member Redwood City Rico Medina Member San Bruno Randy Royce Member San Carlos Jack Matthews Member San Mateo Richard Garbarino Member South San Francisco Dave Burow Member Woodside Julie Lancelle Member Cities Kathy McKeithen Member Cities 13 From www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/bnc 13 Membership A member of the Board of Supervisors designated by the Board of Supervisors, the mayor or a designated member of each city council. Non-voting members include representatives from the Red Cross, School District, Fire Chiefs Association and Police Chiefs Association. Other non-voting members that could be included are representatives from a water district, sanitary district, Harbor District, Transit district, Pacific Gas and Electric, and Pacific Bell Duties The Emergency Services Council is empowered to "review and recommend for adoption by the Board of Supervisors and the city council of each city such emergency plans, programs and agreements." The Emergency Services Council approves the annual budget and recommends it to the County and the cities/towns for adoption. Appointment Board of Supervisors, the mayor or designated member of each city/town council. Attachment 3 San Mateo County Sheriff’s Response to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report Recommendations. July 27, 2007 Honorable John L. Grandsaert Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice(cid:1)400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Re: 2007-2008 Grand Jury Report: Emergency Planning for Dam or Levee Failures in San Mateo County Dear Judge Grandsaert: We wish to acknowledge the efforts of the Civil Grand Jury with this report regarding the efforts of the Office of Emergency Services and Homeland Security (OES/HS). We feel the report is accurate, and depicts an understanding and appreciation by the members of the Grand Jury regarding issues relating to Emergency Planning for dam or levee failures in our County. As the Director of the Area Office of Emergency Services and Homeland Security, I fully support the findings of the Civil Grand Jury and appreciate their assistance in alerting residents and visitors to the very real, and potential danger of a dam or levee failure occurring in San Mateo County. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff instruct the Office of Emergency Services/Homeland Security to:
R13:
Governments to have its levees removed as a review indicated these were not levees. Respondent has no reason to dispute these findings. East Palo Alto East Palo Alto developed an EAP for levees in January 2011, which did not meet its
R14:
East Palo Alto developed an EAP for levees in January 2011, which did not meet its committed timeline. It was not submitted to Office of Emergency Services (OES) until January 2012. City Response: The City of East Palo Alto agrees, the Emergency Action Plan (EAP) was submitted to OES in January 2012.
R15:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) records dated March 12, 2012 do not indicate the existence of any levees in East Palo Alto, which contradicts East Palo Alto's understanding that it is responsible for a levee. According to FEMA, this discrepancy exists because the City of East Palo Alto failed to respond to the Provisional Accreditation Letter regarding requirements for flood insurance. City Response: The City of East Palo Alto partially agrees. The City has been unable to confirm receipt of a letter from FEMA regarding Provisional Accreditation. Attempts to obtain a copy of the letter from FEMA have been unsuccessful. If the City had received the letter from FEMA, the City would have responded and the City's levees would foreseeably have been included in the County's list of levees. The City has continued to maintain the levees and the San Francisquito Creek with the assistance the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara Valley Water District. The City has been evaluated annually by FEMA in conjunction with the National Flood Insurance program Community Rating System program which has resulted in certifications and reductions of flood insurance rates for property owners in East Palo Alto. The City is also a founding member of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA), an agency founded to address flooding
R16:
After receiving the Grand Jury request letter of December 20, 2011 Foster City completed an EAP dated January 12, 2012, which did not meet its committed timeline or was it submitted to OES. Respondent agrees with the Finding. In November 2007, The City of Foster City updated its Emergency Operations Plan to include a threat summary regarding Flooding and an event-specific action plan for Flooding in our Water System Emergency Response Plan. Both the threat summary and the event- specific action plan would be used in lieu of an IAP. Pacifica Pacifica responded to both the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Recommendations and the 2011-
R17:
2012 Grand Jury status request letter stating that it had no dams or levees. The levee was removed as part of the Army Corp of Engineers' San Pedro Creek and Wetland
R18:
Recommendations for Dams and Levees and has no record of responding. Respondent has no reason to dispute these findings. The Superior Court of San Mateo County records could not confirm that San Carlos
R19:
received a copy of the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report. Respondent has no reason to dispute these findings. South San Francisco South San Francisco responded to the 2006-2007 and 2011-2012 Grand Jury status
R20:
request letters stating it has no dams or levees in its jurisdiction according to the FEMA Map Modernization Regional Manager in 2007. Respondent has no reason to dispute these findings.
R21:
According to FEMA's list of levees in San Mateo County, dated March 12, 2012, there is one levee in South San Francisco. Respondent has no reason to dispute these
R22:
South San Francisco has not reconciled this discrepancy with FEMA. Respondent has no reason to dispute these findings.
R23:
FEMA has categorized the levee in South San Francisco as De- Accredited. The levee does not meet flood protection criteria; therefore, flood protection insurance to corresponding adjacent areas may be required. Respondent has no reason to dispute these findings. The City of South San Francisco did not develop or submit an EAP for its disputed
R24:
levee. Respondent has no reason to dispute these findings. Response to Grand Jury Recommendations: Emergency Services Council Recommendations: Provide the resources needed to enable the Sheriff's Office of Emergency Services
R27:
COURS. CALTR CHAMMEL K-34, Lidelin ANS, SHEPTSTRUCTURAL DETAILS
R28:
COLUM COURT CHANGE. "N. COC". IPMC., CH. DETAILS
R29:
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
R44:
SERVAL TERRORS CONTACT INFORMATION VICINITY 1 PAREN ST. SOUTH SAN FEMILISCO SAN WORLD COME ST. SOUTH SAN FEMILISCO SAN WORLD COME ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. Í THE T IT-IT CONFINE i THE PERSON --------------------------------------- 4 6 ANEL 0041 122*24'2 37
R52:
COLLAR COUTX CHOUSING 36" (CANOLLY DIRECTERNIC DATE)
R54:
EBKSmulczyny pczylis 7 SIL SAN SATED ANT. FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT A MEDITE PARTY. - FLAK & PROF E "A"7+08 TO "W"13+406 PANNE - PLAK & PROFIE "$"7+60 TO "$"13+00PANNE - PLAK & PROFIE "$"13+00 TO ENG OPEN - PLAN & PROFIE "H"13+06 TO END WIND - FLAN & PROPER STA-713 TETRADO SAN MATEO COUNT ALTER DE TO MAN SON SONS CONTRACTOR DE LA CONTRACTOR DE LA CONTRACTOR DE LA CONTRACTOR DE LA CONTRACTOR DE LA CONTRACTOR DE LA CONTRACTOR DE LA CONTRACTOR DE LA CONTRACTOR DE LA CONTRACTOR DE LA CONTRACTOR DE LA CONTRACTOR の一方の
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The San Mateo County men’s jail has been overcrowded each year since 2001. Over the last ten years, incarcerated populations have ranged from 120% of bed- rated capacity in 2002, to 147% in 2007. Response: Agree.
F2:
From 2002 through 2007, 50 percent of the average daily population of the San Mateo County men’s jail facility consisted of pre-trial detainees; since 2007, the percentage of pre-trial detainees (PTD) of the average daily population has steadily increased to 76 percent in 2011. Response: Agree. We attribute the substantial shift in percentages to a number of factors, including our robust Alternative Sentencing Bureau, which reduces the number of inmates serving their sentence in our correctional facilities.
F3:
San Mateo County has zero (0) PTDs on an EMP and nine (9) pre- sentenced/sentenced detainees on an EMP. Response: Agree.
F4:
Significant daily cost savings of approximately $100 per inmate/per day is available if selected PTDs are released into an EMP. Response: Respectfully disagree. We believe that it is difficult to accurately compare the EMP costs versus incarceration costs. Our calculations indicate the figure for San Mateo County would be a savings of approximately $7 per inmate (this figure includes the additional costs of monitoring, supervision, infrastructure, administrative expenses, etc.) dependent at least in part upon the number on the EMP at any given time.
F5:
Currently, there is a risk assessment tool in use to determine eligibility for the EMP with pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees. This risk assessment tool is not used with PTDs. Response: Agree.
F6:
The violent crime index in the county has remained relatively stable from 2001- 2009. Response: Agree. 2
F7:
The reasons for the increase in the PTD male jail population (compared to pre- sentenced/sentenced detainees) in recent years are due to two main factors: The types of charges that detainees increasingly face (immigration holds, gang affiliation, violent crimes, sex crimes, DUIs, outstanding warrants) are offenses that eliminate eligibility for any form of release. To comply with the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), in 2008 the Sheriff’s Office changed its classification system for parole holds and others with pending cases or warrants from sentenced to pre-trial. This increased the pre-trial detainee population by 10-15%. Response: We agree in part with this finding; another reason for the increase in the percentage of male PTDs is the aggressive use of alternatives to incarceration for the sentenced population and the use of early release through the imposition of modifiable sentences.
F8:
The statistics reported by the U.S. Department of Justice Statistics (see, Appendix B) from data provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office do not support the first factor listed in Finding #7. Response: Agree. We note that the data source for the U.S. Department of Justice Statistics is the FBI Unified Crime Reporting Program that lists the details of arrests made by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. The PTD male jail population of San Mateo County consists of arrests made by all agencies within San Mateo County, and on occasion, other entities, such as the California Highway Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
F9:
The Sheriff’s Office and the Probation Department have not budgeted for studying or implementing an EMP for PTDs. Response: Agree.
F10:
Elsewhere, EMPs for PTDs have been implemented to varying degrees: Santa Cruz and Santa Clara have purchased their own ankle bracelets and related equipment. Santa Cruz and Sacramento have an active budget for EMP expansions and Pre-trial Services. Santa Clara has one PTD on the EMP; Santa Cruz has 25 PTDs on the EMP; and Sacramento’s EMP for PTDs began May 2012. 3 Santa Cruz is a member of the California Association of Pretrial Services (CAPS) and uses the Virginia Assessment tool to determine eligibility of PTDs for the EMP. San Mateo County spends $7-10 (not including monitoring, supervision costs) per day on the EMP for pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees versus a $169 daily incarceration cost. Response: We agree with this finding, except for the last bullet point. The figure of $7-10 for pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees does not represent the dollar amount costs for pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees in San Mateo County. As previously mentioned, it is difficult to separate the precise relative EMP costs versus incarceration costs. Currently, San Mateo County does not employ the EMP for PTD’s.
F11:
Substantial literature exists for the study and guidance of non-incarceration options, eligibility guidelines, EMP applications, best-practices, etc. (See, Appendix D) Response: Agree; however, please note that Appendix D, that the Grand Jury refers to does not support this finding.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
In San Mateo County there are 15 different fire departments or districts, all of which use the Public Safety Communications Center for dispatch. The Redwood City Fire Station on Marshall Street is the back up facility for fire dispatch. Response The City of Menlo Park partially disagrees with this response. There are actually 18 different fire departments or districts, all of which use Public Safety Communications for dispatch. The 18 agencies are: Belmont Fire, Brisbane Fire*, Colma Fire Protection District, Cal Fire/San Mateo County Fire, Central County Fire (Burlingame and Hillsborough), Daly City Fire*, Foster City Fire**, Cal Fire (Half Moon Bay), Menlo Park Fire Protection District (Atherton, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park), Millbrae Fire*, Pacifica Fire, Coastside Fire Protection District, Redwood City Fire***, San Bruno Fire*, San Carlos Fire, San Mateo Fire**, South San Francisco Fire, and Woodside Fire Protection District. *Agencies are part of North County Fire Joint Powers Agreement. **Agencies share management. ***Redwood City Fire provides administrative oversight. The City of Menlo Park agrees that the Redwood City Fire Station on Marshall Street is the back-up facility for fire dispatch.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
“Off-peak hour” programs be implemented in which smaller cities contract with larger dispatch centers to take over dispatch during off-peak hours such that no city has fewer than two dispatchers on duty at any one time.
F2:
There are 16 Police Departments in the County, including the San Mateo County Sheriff. Response The City of Menlo Park disagrees with this response: There are 15 municipal agencies, one (1) special district and the Sheriff’s Office for total of 17 law enforcement agencies. The 16 municipal agencies are: Daly City, Brisbane, Colma, Pacifica, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Burlingame, Hillsborough, San Mateo, Belmont, Foster City, Redwood City, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and Atherton. Broadmoor (a special district) and the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office which also provide contract police services for the Cities of San Carlos, Millbrae and Half Moon Bay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City Council members take a leadership role on behalf of their constituents to drive consolidation of police dispatch across the County. The Grand Jury recommends to the County Board of Supervisors that it:
F3:
The number ofpolice dispatch centers in the County has been reduced from 22 to 13 over the last 12 years. Response The City of Menlo Park disagrees with this finding. The number of police dispatch centers in San Mateo County has been reduced from 16 to 13 in the past 12 years. The cities/towns of Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Burlingame, Hillsborough, San Mateo, Foster City, Belmont, Redwood City, Menlo Park, Atherton and San Mateo County operate police dispatch centers. Public Safety Communications provides dispatch services for the Sheriff’s Office, contract police dispatch services for East Palo Alto, Broadmoor, Half Moon Bay, San Carlos, Millbrae, Woodside and Portola Valley. San Mateo P.D. provides contract police dispatch for Brisbane. South San Francisco provides contract police dispatch services for Pacifica and night/weekend service for Colma. The only dispatch centers to be contracted out in the past 12 years are Millbrae in 2005, San Carlos in 2006 and Pacifica in 2011.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for
F4:
For those cities operating their own dispatch centers the average cost per call is $30.04. For those cities contracting out dispatch the average costper call is $18.45. Some ofthe cost difference is due to the fact that dispatchers in many citiesperform additional duties while cities that contract out arejustpaying for dispatch services. Response The City of Menlo Park partially disagrees with this finding. Any attempt at comparing the cost per call would be complex when analyzing data received from 13 different dispatch centers. Duties and responsibilities vary among dispatch centers making it particularly difficult to present accurate comparative data. For example, the Menlo Park Records Bureau is open to the public during regular business hours. At all other times, including weekends and holidays, members of the community can directly access our dispatchers in the front lobby of the police department. Dispatchers issue overnight parking permits, process and collect payment for vehicle releases, answer the department’s business telephones, assist the public with reporting crimes and respond to a myriad of other routine community needs. As with other dispatch centers, these ancillary duties are included in their budgets and would need to be removed in order to provide an accurate comparison. Additionally, if dispatch services were contracted out, the cost for these ancillary services would remain. Regardless, the City of Menlo Park believes that consolidating dispatch centers can be a cost effective approach.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation therefore. The City of Menlo Park responds to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury’s report as follows:
F5:
Pacifica and San Carlos each realized large cost savings when they contracted with other cities forpolice dispatch. These savings, taken together with the low costper call noted above for cities contracting out dispatch, demonstrate that consolidation ofpolice dispatch represents a significant cost reduction opportunity for cities with a standalone police dispatch function. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees that the consolidation of dispatch centers has the potential for cost savings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Pacifica and San Carlos each realized large cost savings when they contracted with other cities forpolice dispatch. These savings, taken together with the low costper call noted above for cities contracting out dispatch, demonstrate that consolidation ofpolice dispatch represents a significant cost reduction opportunity for cities with a standalone police dispatch function. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees that the consolidation of dispatch centers has the potential for cost savings.
F6:
Some municipalpolice dispatch centers have only one dispatcher on duty at certain times. Some have a minimum oftwo. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Some municipalpolice dispatch centers have only one dispatcher on duty at certain times. Some have a minimum oftwo. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding
F7:
Largerpolice dispatch centers have dedicated dispatch teams, not distracted by tangential responsibilities, and tend to provide better trainingprograms for the intense dispatchjob. Response The City of Menlo Park partially disagrees with this finding. The Menlo Park Police Department meets or exceeds California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) standards. Menlo Park also uses the POST Learning Portal for WEB based training along with training on policies through Lexipol LLC and our Policy Manual. The Menlo Park Police Department has sufficient dispatch staff on-duty at all times to handle critical incidents. This also provides the flexibility to have dispatchers handle some clerical tasks during periods of low activity thus maximizing employee productivity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Largerpolice dispatch centers have dedicated dispatch teams, not distracted by tangential responsibilities, and tend to provide better trainingprograms for the intense dispatchjob. Response The City of Menlo Park partially disagrees with this finding. The Menlo Park Police Department meets or exceeds California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) standards. Menlo Park also uses the POST Learning Portal for WEB based training along with training on policies through Lexipol LLC and our Policy Manual. The Menlo Park Police Department has sufficient dispatch staff on-duty at all times to handle critical incidents. This also provides the flexibility to have dispatchers handle some clerical tasks during periods of low activity thus maximizing employee productivity.
F8:
The PSC has a minimum ofnine dispatchers on duty at all times. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding. There are tour (4) law enforcement consoles, three (3) Fire consoles, one (1) Emergency Medical Services console and one supervisor on duty at all times.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The PSC has a minimum ofnine dispatchers on duty at all times. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding. There are tour (4) law enforcement consoles, three (3) Fire consoles, one (1) Emergency Medical Services console and one supervisor on duty at all times.
F9:
There is no back-up for the lawenforcement dispatch portion of the PSC, even though the PSC itselfis a back-up center for otherpolice dispatch centers in the County. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
There is no back-up for the lawenforcement dispatch portion of the PSC, even though the PSC itselfis a back-up center for otherpolice dispatch centers in the County. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding.
F10:
No single dispatch site is currentlyavailable that can handle all police dispatch. Several dispatch centers, including South San Francisco, the City ofSan Mateo, Redwood City, Menlo Parkand the PSC, have facilities with the capacity to expand to provide police dispatch services to additionaljurisdictions. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
No single dispatch site is currentlyavailable that can handle all police dispatch. Several dispatch centers, including South San Francisco, the City ofSan Mateo, Redwood City, Menlo Parkand the PSC, have facilities with the capacity to expand to provide police dispatch services to additionaljurisdictions. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding.
F11:
The County Sheriffowns, and the PSC operates, the “Green Channel” (a proprietaryradio communications channel) which enables interoperabilltyacross all lawenforcement departments and through which mutual aid from emergency-response agencies is achieved. Response The City of Menlo Park partially disagrees with this finding. The license holder of the “green” channel is the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. The “green” channel is considered a mutual aid asset. This asset is “owned” by all the cities in San Mateo County through the Office of Emergency Services Joint Powers Agreement. Maintenance and replacement costs are funded by City and County contributions to the Office of Emergency Services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The County Sheriffowns, and the PSC operates, the “Green Channel” (a proprietaryradio communications channel) which enables interoperabilltyacross all lawenforcement departments and through which mutual aid from emergency-response agencies is achieved. Response The City of Menlo Park partially disagrees with this finding. The license holder of the “green” channel is the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. The “green” channel is considered a mutual aid asset. This asset is “owned” by all the cities in San Mateo County through the Office of Emergency Services Joint Powers Agreement. Maintenance and replacement costs are funded by City and County contributions to the Office of Emergency Services.
F12:
All those interviewed believe that dispatch consolidation is beneficial, andmost of those interviewedbelieve the County should have more than one dispatch center. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees in concept with the finding but cannot comment directly on interviews conducted by the Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
All those interviewed believe that dispatch consolidation is beneficial, andmost of those interviewedbelieve the County should have more than one dispatch center. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees in concept with the finding but cannot comment directly on interviews conducted by the Grand Jury.
F13:
Factors that hinder consolidation include the perceivedneed for local dispatchers, the fact that some dispatchers also have other responsibilities, the incompatibility ofequipment, and differences in the levels ofservice offeredby various police departments. GrandJury interviews revealed that cities that have completed consolidation of police dispatch have found these issues to be manageable. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Factors that hinder consolidation include the perceivedneed for local dispatchers, the fact that some dispatchers also have other responsibilities, the incompatibility ofequipment, and differences in the levels ofservice offeredby various police departments. GrandJury interviews revealed that cities that have completed consolidation of police dispatch have found these issues to be manageable. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding.
F14:
Elected officials in some cities have been reluctant to consolidate police dispatch. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
Elected officials in some cities have been reluctant to consolidate police dispatch. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding.
F15:
All cities that have outsourcedpolice dispatch services, either to other cities or to the County, pay considerably less for dispatch services without degradation ofservice. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding. However, most if not all cities that have outsourced dispatch services or contracted with San Mateo County Public Safety Communications have been smaller agencies. Larger agencies may not realize similar cost savings and actually end up paying more for similar levels of service. More study is required in this area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
All cities that have outsourcedpolice dispatch services, either to other cities or to the County, pay considerably less for dispatch services without degradation ofservice. Response The City of Menlo Park agrees with this finding. However, most if not all cities that have outsourced dispatch services or contracted with San Mateo County Public Safety Communications have been smaller agencies. Larger agencies may not realize similar cost savings and actually end up paying more for similar levels of service. More study is required in this area. Recommendations The Grand Jury recommends to the City Councils of the Cities of San Mateo County that:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Fewer than 20 percent of the core academic courses in the Community Schools were taught by “highly qualified” teachers in the 2010-2011 school year. The SMCOE has plans to increase that percentage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Consolidate the three community schools into one central campus location and increase the number of core academic courses taught by No Child Left Behind-defined ”highly qualified” teachers in preparation for the 2012-2013 school year.
F2:
The San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE) is considering consolidation of the three Community School sites to one campus at the Gateway site in order to more effectively utilize facilities, teaching resources and funding. This would also provide the opportunity to increase the percentage of courses taught by “highly qualified” teachers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Establish and periodically review performance measures of the Court and Community School program. Consider including the number of course credits earned per student /semester as one element and metrics related to student outcomes such as successful return to district schools of residence or GED credential earned.
F3:
Currently, the Court and Community Schools assess individual student progress by tracking the number of credits earned per student. The schools do not summarize earned credit data across students or set other meaningful measures to evaluate overall performance of the Court and Community School programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Evaluate whether embarking on the process of Western Association of School and Colleges accreditation is in the best interest of the Court and Community Schools in light of the value to students to gain direct entrance to UC or CSU campuses and the significant resources that would be required to attain such accreditation. 7
F4:
The SMCOE does not track the number of Community School students who return to their district school of residence or achieve other meaningful academic outcomes, such as earning a GED credential.
F5:
The Court and Community schools are not Western Association of Schools and Colleges accredited 6 Conclusions The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
CAL FIRE is a full-service rural, suburban and urban fire protection agency.
F2:
CAL FIRE is a fully integrated part of the County’s fire protection system with 72 fire fighters working effectively with municipal fire departments and fire districts and utilizing the County’s central dispatch system. The CAL FIRE coverage area includes most unincorporated portions of the County and the Coastside Fire District.
F3:
From interviews, the Grand Jury learned that there is broad agreement among officials and staff from the County and cities that CAL FIRE has provided effective fire protection services in the areas of San Mateo County it serves.
F4:
Differences between work shifts of CAL FIRE and municipal fire departments, and differences in the wage rates and benefits, allow CAL FIRE to offer comparatively less expensive fire services in the Bay Area.
F5:
CAL FIRE prices its services by applying a standard 11% overhead cost on top of direct costs.
F6:
San Mateo County has contracted with CAL FIRE for services to its unincorporated areas since 1962. The current contract expires on June 30, 2012.
F7:
As of October, 2011 the San Mateo County budget deficit stood at $50 million.5
F8:
San Carlos requested that the County Board of Supervisors allow San Carlos to obtain fire protection services from CAL FIRE through the County’s contract with CAL FIRE. 5 http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachments/cmo/pdfs/Budget%20&%20Performance/SeptemberRevisions_2011.pdf 6 The issue came before the two-member Finance and Operations Committee (the F&O Committee) on January 18, and February 15, 2011.
F9:
From the County staff report of January 18, 2011, adjusted for a budgetary mistake, CAL FIRE could have saved San Carlos between approximately $600,000 and $2.5 million per year.6
F10:
From the County staff report of January 18, 2011, in addition to substantial savings for San Carlos, bringing San Carlos under the County contract with CAL FIRE could have saved the County an additional $650,000 per year. Neither the savings to San Carlos or the County were discussed by the F&O Committee on January 18.
F11:
From the County staff report of February 15, 2011, “County Fire has a budget reduction target of $218,877 for FY 2011/12 with the goal of eventually eliminating all $1 million in general fund contributions.” (See, Appendix C)
F12:
In response to a request from the F&O Committee, CAL FIRE prepared a cost estimate for delivery of fire protection to five County cities (Redwood City, San Carlos, Belmont, Foster City and San Mateo). According to the County staff report of February 15, 2011, the estimated aggregate cost savings to those five cities could be between $1.7 million and $16.8 million per year.
F13:
The CAL FIRE service cost estimates and potential savings for the County and the five County cities were not discussed by the Committee members at the February 15, 2011, F&O Committee meeting.
F14:
From the audio transcripts of both the January 18 and February 15, 2011 F&O Committee meetings, Supervisor Adrienne Tissier said that the Governor had called for CAL FIRE getting out of the urban fire-fighting business.
F15:
The Governor’s January 10, 2011 recommendations on CAL FIRE realignment only applied to State Responsibility Areas and did not apply to contracts with local jurisdictions, such as its contracts with San Mateo County or the Coastside Fire District. There was no suggestion from the Governor that CAL FIRE should curtail delivery of urban fire protection services funded by counties or cities.
F16:
Also during the February 15, 2011 F&O Committee meeting, the Supervisors said that the County does not want to be in the fire-fighting business. The Supervisors further said they strongly supported regional fire-protection solutions in the County as a means to reduce redundant administrative and infrastructure costs to the cities.
F17:
The Supervisors recommended that Belmont and San Carlos enter into mediation to continue their joint fire department while regionalization alternatives could be explored. From interviews and meeting transcripts, most San Carlos and Belmont officials stated there was little chance for mediation to be successful. The Staff Report states that San Carlos was paying about $6.3 million from its general fund. This is true, but the actual cost for fire services was $7.1 million, which is $800,000 more than cited in the Staff Report. It would, therefore, be more correct to say that the savings to San Carlos was between $1.4 million and $3.3 million. 7
F18:
From the letter of the CAL FIRE Acting Director, quoted above, and from interviews with officials from various cities and fire-protection agencies, there is reluctance to consider expanding CAL FIRE’s role in San Mateo County because of opposition by the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2400. Conclusions The Grand Jury concludes as follows:
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Renew its contract with CAL FIRE by June 30, 2012, unless there is a new compelling fiscal reason to change.
R2:
During contract negotiations with CAL Fire, include a provision within the contract that would allow fiscally qualified cities to sub-contract for CAL FIRE services through the County such that the County as well as the cities can benefit.
R3:
Until the provision in Recommendation 2 is approved, allow fiscally qualified cities and fire districts in the County to sub-contract services with CAL FIRE under the County’s contract.
R4:
View CAL FIRE as a potential component of the regionalization effort. The Grand Jury further recommends to cities and special fire districts in San Mateo County:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
CAL FIRE is a full-service rural, suburban and urban fire protection agency.
F2:
CAL FIRE is a fully integrated part of the County’s fire protection system with 72 fire fighters working effectively with municipal fire departments and fire districts and utilizing the County’s central dispatch system. The CAL FIRE coverage area includes most unincorporated portions of the County and the Coastside Fire District.
F3:
From interviews, the Grand Jury learned that there is broad agreement among officials and staff from the County and cities that CAL FIRE has provided effective fire protection services in the areas of San Mateo County it serves.
F4:
Differences between work shifts of CAL FIRE and municipal fire departments, and differences in the wage rates and benefits, allow CAL FIRE to offer comparatively less expensive fire services in the Bay Area.
F5:
CAL FIRE prices its services by applying a standard 11% overhead cost on top of direct costs.
F6:
San Mateo County has contracted with CAL FIRE for services to its unincorporated areas since 1962. The current contract expires on June 30, 2012.
F7:
As of October, 2011 the San Mateo County budget deficit stood at $50 million.5
F8:
San Carlos requested that the County Board of Supervisors allow San Carlos to obtain fire protection services from CAL FIRE through the County’s contract with CAL FIRE. 5 http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachments/cmo/pdfs/Budget%20&%20Performance/SeptemberRevisions_2011.pdf 6 The issue came before the two-member Finance and Operations Committee (the F&O Committee) on January 18, and February 15, 2011.
F9:
From the County staff report of January 18, 2011, adjusted for a budgetary mistake, CAL FIRE could have saved San Carlos between approximately $600,000 and $2.5 million per year.6
F10:
From the County staff report of January 18, 2011, in addition to substantial savings for San Carlos, bringing San Carlos under the County contract with CAL FIRE could have saved the County an additional $650,000 per year. Neither the savings to San Carlos or the County were discussed by the F&O Committee on January 18.
F11:
From the County staff report of February 15, 2011, “County Fire has a budget reduction target of $218,877 for FY 2011/12 with the goal of eventually eliminating all $1 million in general fund contributions.” (See, Appendix C)
F12:
In response to a request from the F&O Committee, CAL FIRE prepared a cost estimate for delivery of fire protection to five County cities (Redwood City, San Carlos, Belmont, Foster City and San Mateo). According to the County staff report of February 15, 2011, the estimated aggregate cost savings to those five cities could be between $1.7 million and $16.8 million per year.
F13:
The CAL FIRE service cost estimates and potential savings for the County and the five County cities were not discussed by the Committee members at the February 15, 2011, F&O Committee meeting.
F14:
From the audio transcripts of both the January 18 and February 15, 2011 F&O Committee meetings, Supervisor Adrienne Tissier said that the Governor had called for CAL FIRE getting out of the urban fire-fighting business.
F15:
The Governor’s January 10, 2011 recommendations on CAL FIRE realignment only applied to State Responsibility Areas and did not apply to contracts with local jurisdictions, such as its contracts with San Mateo County or the Coastside Fire District. There was no suggestion from the Governor that CAL FIRE should curtail delivery of urban fire protection services funded by counties or cities.
F16:
Also during the February 15, 2011 F&O Committee meeting, the Supervisors said that the County does not want to be in the fire-fighting business. The Supervisors further said they strongly supported regional fire-protection solutions in the County as a means to reduce redundant administrative and infrastructure costs to the cities.
F17:
The Supervisors recommended that Belmont and San Carlos enter into mediation to continue their joint fire department while regionalization alternatives could be explored. From interviews and meeting transcripts, most San Carlos and Belmont officials stated there was little chance for mediation to be successful. The Staff Report states that San Carlos was paying about $6.3 million from its general fund. This is true, but the actual cost for fire services was $7.1 million, which is $800,000 more than cited in the Staff Report. It would, therefore, be more correct to say that the savings to San Carlos was between $1.4 million and $3.3 million. 7
F18:
From the letter of the CAL FIRE Acting Director, quoted above, and from interviews with officials from various cities and fire-protection agencies, there is reluctance to consider expanding CAL FIRE’s role in San Mateo County because of opposition by the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2400. Conclusions The Grand Jury concludes as follows:
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Renew its contract with CAL FIRE by June 30, 2012, unless there is a new compelling fiscal reason to change.
R2:
During contract negotiations with CAL Fire, include a provision within the contract that would allow fiscally qualified cities to sub-contract for CAL FIRE services through the County such that the County as well as the cities can benefit.
R3:
Until the provision in Recommendation 2 is approved, allow fiscally qualified cities and fire districts in the County to sub-contract services with CAL FIRE under the County’s contract.
R4:
View CAL FIRE as a potential component of the regionalization effort. The Grand Jury further recommends to cities and special fire districts in San Mateo County:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
All permanent San Mateo County employees are members of the San Mateo County Employees’ Retirement Association (SamCERA).
F2:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
SamCERA was created in 1944 and is governed by the provisions of the County Employees’ Retirement Law of 1937 as amended over the years.
F3:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
SamCERA operates 10 different retirement plans. Within each plan there are multiple tiers based on a member’s bargaining unit and date of hire. Each tier has different employee contribution and cost sharing requirements. These have been negotiated with the County’s nine employee unions.
F4:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
As of June 30, 2011, SamCERA had an unfunded liability of approximately $842 million. As of that same date, SamCERA was estimated to be 74.1% funded.
F5:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
On May 22, 2012, SamCERA lowered the assumed annual rate of return for its invested assets from 7.75% to 7.5%, effective July 1, 2013.
F6:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
County contributions to SamCERA have been increasing per Table 2. In fiscal year 2005-06, the County contributed a total of $78 million to SamCERA. In fiscal year 2006- 07 there was a $22 million increase in the County contributions. In fiscal year 2010-11, County employer contributions jumped by $45 million to $150 million.
F7:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
For fiscal year 2013-14, the Grand Jury estimates that the required County contribution will increase again by approximately $13 million (assuming $435 million in salaries) unless salaries and/or number of employees are reduced, or other solutions are found.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Develop and adhere to a specific budget strategy to lower County retirement contributions to SamCERA and restructure benefits by: a. significantly decreasing the number of County employees through outsourcing and/or reducing services, and by attrition; b. negotiating the elimination of the employer pickup and “right-sizing” future benefits with the unions without increasing salaries; and c. studying the possibility of withdrawing from Social Security.
F8:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Factors determining County contribution levels include past and future investment returns and losses on SamCERA’s investment assets, salary levels, employer pickups, the total number of County employees, union agreements, and limits imposed by State statutes.
F9:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
For 2010, per Table 3, the County paid 78% of the combined employer-employee share of contributions to SamCERA.
F10:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Pensions are partly based on salaries. However, salary increases do not account for the near doubling in pension costs since 2006. In fiscal year 2010-11, the average annual salary for non-safety employees in San Mateo County was $79,189 (not including public 9 safety or probation officers salaries). If public safety and probation officers are included, the average annual salary was $82,464. 26
F11:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
In addition to pension benefits, all pensioners except retired safety members receive Social Security. The County pays the employer portion of Social Security, which adds 6% of payroll expense to the budget.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Develop and adhere to a specific budget strategy to lower County retirement contributions to SamCERA and restructure benefits by: a. significantly decreasing the number of County employees through outsourcing and/or reducing services, and by attrition; b. negotiating the elimination of the employer pickup and “right-sizing” future benefits with the unions without increasing salaries; and c. studying the possibility of withdrawing from Social Security.
F12:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
The County currently pays 61 cents on every dollar of salary (or 61% of salary) earned by current employees for fringe benefits including retirement benefits, per Table 5. These benefits are projected to gradually increase starting in July 2013, and for nine years thereafter, to 68 cents per dollar of payroll for County employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Develop and adhere to a specific budget strategy to lower County retirement contributions to SamCERA and restructure benefits by: a. significantly decreasing the number of County employees through outsourcing and/or reducing services, and by attrition; b. negotiating the elimination of the employer pickup and “right-sizing” future benefits with the unions without increasing salaries; and c. studying the possibility of withdrawing from Social Security.
F13:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
The number of active members of SamCERA (i.e., active County employees) has been decreasing since 2009, per Table 6. In 2011, the County Manager told the Board of Supervisors that a $5.3 million reduction in retirement contributions could be achieved if 208 positions were eliminated. (The full reduction was not realized because some jobs were restored.)
F14:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
A reduction in pension costs to the County has been achieved by obtaining union concessions, by reducing the employer pickup for management and other unrepresented groups, by continuing to introduce new less-costly plans for new employees (which will be realized in future years), and most significantly by reducing the number of County employees.
F15:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Many counties that have pension systems governed by the 1937 Act do not participate in Social Security.
F16:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Information on Social Security payments and employer pickups is not readily available from the County or on the County website, nor are recent meeting minutes available on the SamCERA website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Make County and SamCERA information more easily accessible to the public, including the amount of employer pickups, the payments to Social Security, and the past and projected County (employer) and employee annual contributions to SamCERA. 11
F17:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
The State Legislature would likely have to amend state statutes in order to allow the County to make changes to current employee pension contracts going forward (without affecting pensions already earned). Conclusions The San Mateo Civil Grand Jury concludes that:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Actively support State pension reform that would allow for changes to future retirement benefits for current employees (without effecting pensions already earned).
F2009:
Table 6 Number of Active County Employees Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 5,514 5,475 5,524 5,327 5,227* members *Projected. Referring to Table 2 above, one can see that the recent decrease in the number of employees has resulted in an approximate $4 million dollar decrease in the County’s required retirement contribution in 2012. Additional employee reductions will come from ending the County’s operation of the Burlingame Long-Term Care Facility. See Footnote 7, Appendix, throughout 21 SamCERA valuation preview, May 22, 2012, p. 12. 22 http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/bos.dir/BosAgendas/agendas2011/Agenda20110621/20110621_m_10.html 23 http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachments/cmo/pdfs/Budget%20&%20Performance/SeptemberRevisions_ 2011.pdf, 24 http://www.samcera.org/pdf/2011CAFR.pdf, p.111 7 Toward Pension-Cost Reductions The Grand Jury learned during its investigation that the County has done the following to reduce pension costs: 1. Obtained concessions from some unions during contract negotiations for their members to pay a larger portion of the employee contribution to SamCERA. For example, the California Nurses Association agreed that their members would forego 25% of the cost- of-living-adjustment increases, post retirement.
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
EHD inspections of fixed location restaurants are unannounced and include observations of food handlers, food storage, food preparation, food serving and cleanup under normal operating conditions.
F2:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
The large majority of EHD inspections of food trucks are by appointment or on a fixed schedule and do not provide for the opportunity to view normal operations. Food is often not even on the vehicle during initial or annual permitting inspections.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
As soon as possible in FY 2012-2013, move to a system of unannounced inspections of all food trucks under actual operating conditions, equivalent to that of restaurants.
R2:
By October 2012, perform a sufficient number of unannounced inspections of food trucks under actual operating conditions to reliably estimate the time and resources needed to fully implement a program of unannounced inspections of all under actual operating conditions.
F3:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
It takes approximately 30 minutes of actual inspection time to do a physical inspection of a food truck by the current process.
F4:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
Only approximately 60 percent of the 146 food trucks showed up for their 2012 scheduled inspection appointments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In January 2013, when the annual inspection notifications are mailed, advise food truck operators that they will be assessed additional fees or penalties if they fail to keep their scheduled appointments.
F5:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
An unannounced food truck inspection during actual operations would take an average of 45 minutes, 15 minutes longer than the current process, and incur an estimated one-hour of travel time per inspection.
F6:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
All food truck operators are required to contract with and designate on initial and annual permitting applications, a commissary where they will park their vehicles, clean their facility, discharge waste and utilize other provided services. Some food trucks were not using the commissary they identified and did not reliably report changes to EHD consistent with permitting requirements. 10
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By October 2012, implement a system that reconciles ongoing reports by commissaries of food trucks that terminated their commissary relationship against EHD’s internal database records to verify that all food trucks are using a commissary as required by Cal Code.
F7:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
The new permitting forms for 2012 do not require the food truck operators to contact EHD if they change their route schedule.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
As part of the 2013 annual permitting process, require food truck operators to report changes to their route schedules to EHD within two weeks of the change. 12
F8:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
Beginning with the annual renewal process in February 2012, commissaries are now required to report to EHD when food trucks stop using their services. EHD does not currently have a written procedure in place to act on this information to ensure compliance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By October 2012, implement a system that reconciles ongoing reports by commissaries of food trucks that terminated their commissary relationship against EHD’s internal database records to verify that all food trucks are using a commissary as required by Cal Code.
F9:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
EHD does not routinely check for food truck usage of designated commissaries during its commissary inspections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By October 2012, implement a system that reconciles ongoing reports by commissaries of food trucks that terminated their commissary relationship against EHD’s internal database records to verify that all food trucks are using a commissary as required by Cal Code.
F10:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
All food truck operators are required to complete a food safety certification program or show proof that they have enrolled in one. They have up to a 60-day grace period to complete the food safety certification process.
F11:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
Unless the food truck operator provides EHD with the Food Safety Certificate completion information, EHD will not know whether the required Certificate was obtained until the next annual inspection.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By October 2012, change its permitting procedures to require food truck operators or the Food Safety Certificate training program administrators to notify EHD when the certificate is issued.
F12:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
Prior to July of 2011, EHD posted to its website food trucks or restaurants with major repeat violations, providing interested consumers with useful information that is no longer easily available.
F13:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
Actual reports of food-borne illness appear to be approximately the same for restaurants and food trucks. However, the low reporting of food-borne illness makes it difficult to reliably evaluate comparative risk levels on a quantitative basis.
F14:
The San Mateo Grand Jury finds that:
Food-borne illnesses present a complex set of symptoms and can take up to 14 days to diagnose. Therefore the source is difficult to identify. EHD investigations generally consist of standard inspections of suspect facilities to identify any ongoing risks. Conclusions The San Mateo Grand Jury concludes that:
F2011:
This compares to approximately 3,745 fixed location restaurants. The number of food trucks has grown 47% over the last two years compared to a 4% decline in restaurants. Food trucks have also gone up-scale, with more cook-to-order and specialty items available. The storage and handling of raw meats is associated with a greater potential for contamination and food-borne illness than with pre-packaged foods. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (EHD) is responsible for permitting and inspecting both restaurants and food trucks. EHD routinely inspects restaurants during normal business hours when food storage, preparation, serving and cleaning conditions can be observed. These inspections are unannounced, increasing the opportunity to see possible health code violations or poor practices. In sharp contrast, EHD inspects all food trucks for initial permitting and for annual renewal by appointment or during scheduled appointment drive-up periods. In many cases, food and beverages are not even in the vehicle during these inspections. Many food-borne illness risks go undetected with this system. EHD claims the difficulty of locating food trucks on their routes and resource constraints prevent an inspection program comparable to that for restaurants. Food trucks are required by law to designate and use commissaries for key support services, such as parking, gray water and waste disposal, potable water supply and, in some cases, for limited food storage and preparation. Food trucks do not always use the commissaries they designate and EHD does not routinely check compliance. Finally, food trucks can operate for up to 60 days without an operator who has completed the Food Safety Certification program, a risk that applies to all food facilities under state law.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
By October 2012, enhance the EHD website to enable a process of searching and displaying a list of restaurants and food trucks with repeat major violations as of their last inspection. Attachment A: California Retail Food Code Official Definitions California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7, Chapter 2 Definitions (Relevant Extracts) 113789 Food Facility (a) “FOOD FACILITY means an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides FOOD for human consumption at the RETAIL level, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) An operation where FOOD is consumed on or off the PREMISES, regardless of whether there is a charge for the FOOD. (2) Any place used in conjunction with the operations described in this subdivision, including, but not limited to, storage facilities for FOOD-related UTENSILS, EQUIPMENT, and MATERIALS (b) “FOOD FACILITY” includes permanent and nonpermanent FOOD FACILITIES, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Public and private school cafeterias (2) RESTRICTED FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES (3) Licensed health care facilities (4) Commissaries (5) Mobile food facilities (6) Temporary food facilities (7) Vending machines (8) CERTIFIED FARMERS’MARKETS, for purposes of permitting and enforcement pursuant to Section 114370 (9) FARM STANDS, for purposes of permitting and enforcement pursuant to Section 114375 113831 Mobile Food Facility (a) “Mobile Food Facility” means any vehicle used in conjunction with a COMMISSARY or other PERMANENT FOOD FACILITY upon which FOOD is sold or distributed at RETAIL. “MOBILE FOOD FACILITY” does not include a “TRANSPORTER” used to transport packaged FOOD from a FOOD FACILITY, or other APPROVED SOURCE to the CONSUMER. 113849 Permanent Food Facility “PERMANENT FOOD FACILITY” means a “FOOD FACILITY operating in a permanently constructed structure, including any room, building, place, or portion thereof, maintained, used, or operated for the purpose of storing, preparing, manufacturing, packaging, or otherwise handling FOOD at the RETAIL level 113751 Commissary “COMMISSARY” means a FOOD FACILITY that services MOBILE FOOD FACILITIES, MOBILE SUPPORT UNITS, or VENDING MACHINES where any of the following occur: (a) FOOD, containers, or supplies are stored. 14 (b) (b) FOOD is prepared or prepackaged for sale or service at other locations. (c) UTENSILS are cleaned. (d) Liquid and solid wastes are disposed, or POTABLE WATER is obtained. Attachment B: Algorithm of Events in the Investigation of Potential Outbreaks 16 17 Legend: Flowchart Abbreviations EH – Environmental Health Department (County) CD – Communicable Disease (County) Lab – Laboratory (County) HO – Health Officer (County) Epi – Epidemiology (County) FDA – Food and Drug Administration (Federal) CDC – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Federal) CDPH – California Department of Public Health (State) CalREDIE - California Reportable Disease Information Exchange (State) 18
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Prior to contracting fire and emergency services to CAL FIRE in 2008, the CFPD and its predecessors, the HMBFPD and PMFPD, were beset with operational, labor management, morale and legal issues. Employee turnover was high.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Hire an independent professional administrator to manage the contract with CAL FIRE so that the Board does not need to be involved in the detailed operation of the department.
R4:
In the future, conduct performance audits of its fire and other emergency services as part of the contract renewal process (e.g., every three years) to ensure the level of service it receives from CAL FIRE and the contract price paid are satisfactory and competitive. If such an analysis indicates there are better alternatives to CAL FIRE available, based upon breadth, quality, or cost of service, then the District should consider a change.
F2:
The signing of the contract with CAL FIRE was delayed for a year by a lawsuit supported by IAFF Local 2400, in which the named plaintiff is the current CFPD Board president. Two court rulings supported the District’s authority to contract with CAL FIRE for services. A petition for review by the California Supreme Court was denied.
F3:
CAL FIRE has delivered fire and emergency services under contract to the CFPD since June 2008. In July 2011, a number of changes were made in the contract between CFPD and CAL FIRE to establish more comprehensive performance reporting and to better delineate training requirements and fire prevention activities. The changes were embodied in Exhibit E. of the contract.
F4:
CAL FIRE staff reports on performance against the requirements of Exhibit E. quarterly in CFPD Board meetings.
F5:
Despite a difficult transition period in its first 18 months of its contract, CAL FIRE’s performance in support of the CFPD has met—and exceeded--performance standards in 2010 and 2011 in the areas of emergency call response time, staff training on specialized skills, building inspections, review of building plans, fire hydrant inspections, and vegetation management inspections. Also employee turnover has dropped. According to CFPD records, out of 39 full-time-equivalent employees, two employees have left the department in the last 13 months and a total of six in the last two years.
F6:
Although direct comparisons are difficult, given the many changes in staffing levels over the years, it is clear that contracting services to CAL FIRE has saved CFPD money over managing a stand-alone fire department. Savings are derived from lower salary and benefits costs with CAL FIRE, the 72-hour work week utilized by CAL FIRE, which allows it to operate with fewer employees, and from sharing some services with the San Mateo County Fire Department.
F7:
Discussions of whether CFPD would be better off with a stand-alone fire department have been regular occurrences over the last three years at CFPD Board meetings.
F8:
Several fire departments in the County and elsewhere are moving away from stand-alone departments and merging or outsourcing to contain costs and improve performance.13
F9:
In December 2010, the CFPD Board commissioned the TriData Division of the System Planning Corporation to conduct a performance audit of CAL FIRE services and, in part, to address whether the CFPD should return to a locally formed fire department. The resulting TriData Report, which was completed in August 2011, praised the work of 13 2009-2010 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report, City Fire Departments Consolidations / Mergers, http://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2009/fire_dept.pdf 12 CAL FIRE in the District and cited several significant improvements delivered by CAL FIRE. The Report also recommended that the District continue contracting with CAL FIRE for fire and emergency services. The Board passed a resolution saying that some of the Report’s findings were in error without providing specifics.
F10:
At its December 14, 2011 meeting, the CFPD Board voted to “direct counsel to prepare a report for the Board on the process to reestablish a standalone department to provide fire and emergency services within the District at the expiration of the Cal Fire contract on June 30, 2012.” At its January 31, 2012 meeting, the Board approved a professional services contract with a labor law firm to assess reestablishing a standalone fire and emergency services department in the District. In neither meeting was there a discussion of or agreement on what aspects of performance or cost the Board was hoping to improve upon nor was there discussion of the cost of conducting the investigation, aside from the law firm’s hourly rates.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Immediately discontinue its investigation of the process necessary to reestablish a stand- alone fire department at the expiration of its current contract with CAL FIRE which ends on June 30, 2012
R2:
Complete negotiations with CAL FIRE to extend the contract for three years before the contract expires on June 30, 2012.
R5:
The Board should refrain from formally considering whether to reestablish a stand-alone fire department unless substantial and material deficiencies in performance surface. 15
F11:
Also during the December 14, 2011 Board meeting, CAL FIRE Unit Chief Ferreira said that the actions of the Board in investigating steps to end the relationship with CAL FIRE and reestablish a stand-alone department would impact employee morale and potentially impact achieving other goals on behalf of the District. Previously the TriData Report (p.18) said that “relations between CFPD and CAL FIRE have been problematic from the start, primarily because some individuals still want the locally formed fire department versus CAL FIRE.”
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Immediately discontinue its investigation of the process necessary to reestablish a stand- alone fire department at the expiration of its current contract with CAL FIRE which ends on June 30, 2012
R2:
Complete negotiations with CAL FIRE to extend the contract for three years before the contract expires on June 30, 2012.
R5:
The Board should refrain from formally considering whether to reestablish a stand-alone fire department unless substantial and material deficiencies in performance surface. 15
F12:
Local entities contract for CAL FIRE services on a cost plus 11% (for overhead) basis and are not negatively impacted by fiscal problems that the State-funded wild-fire protection services may have. About 150 agencies like the CFPD take advantage of CAL FIRE Cooperative Agreements to streamline their operations in a cost-effective way.14 CAL FIRE operates approximately 575 local government fire stations in California.15 CAL FIRE has not unilaterally withdrawn from any cooperative service agreements elsewhere in the State in the last 30 years and has committed to providing a minimum of one year’s notice prior to ending its service to the CFPD. Conclusions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The San Mateo County men’s jail has been overcrowded each year since 2001. Over the last ten years, incarcerated populations have ranged from 120% of bed-rated capacity in 2002 to 147% in 2007.21
F2:
From 2002 through 2007, 50 percent of the average daily population of the San Mateo County men’s jail facility consisted of pre-trial detainees (PTDs); since 2007, the pre- trial detainee (PTD) average daily population percentage has steadily increased to 76 percent in 2011.
F3:
San Mateo County has zero (0) pre-trial detainees on an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) and nine (9) pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees on an EMP.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that significant daily cost savings of approximately $100 per inmate/per day is available if selected pre-trial detainees are released into an EMP.
F5:
Currently, there is a risk assessment tool in use to determine eligibility for EMP with pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees. This risk assessment tool is not used with pre-trial detainees. Sheriff’s Office Information: San Mateo County Sentenced vs. Pretrial in Custody Inmate Population Percentage. 8
F6:
Based on the U.S. Department of Justice adult male arrest data provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, the violent crime index in the county has remained relatively stable from 2001-2009.
F7:
According to information gathered from interviews conducted by the Grand Jury, the reasons for the increase in the pre-trial detainee male jail population (compared to pre- sentenced/sentenced detainees) in recent years are due to two main factors: • The types of charges that detainees increasingly face (immigration holds, gang affiliation, violent crimes, sex crimes, DUIs, outstanding warrants) are offenses that eliminate eligibility for any form of release. • To comply with the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), in 2008 the Sheriff’s Office changed its classification system for parole holds and others with pending cases or warrants from sentenced to pre-trial. This increased the pre-trial detainee population by 10-15%.22
F8:
The statistics reported by the U.S. Department of Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics (see, Appendix B) from data provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office do not support the first factor listed in Finding #7.23
F9:
The Sheriff’s Office and the Probation Department have not budgeted for studying or implementing an EMP for pre-trial detainees.
F10:
Elsewhere EMPs for PTDs have been implemented to varying degrees: • Santa Cruz and Santa Clara have purchased their own ankle bracelets and related equipment. • Santa Cruz and Sacramento have an active budget for EMP expansion and Pre- trial Services. • Santa Clara has one PTD on EMP; Santa Cruz has 25 PTDs on EMP; and Sacramento’s EMP program for PTDs begins May 2012. • Santa Cruz is a member of the California Association of Pretrial Services (CAPS) and uses the Virginia Assessment tool to determine eligibility of PTDs for EMP. • San Mateo County spends $7-10 (not including monitoring, supervision costs) per day on EMP for pre-sentenced/sentenced detainees versus a $169 daily incarceration cost. Interview with Sheriff’s Office staff from ASB on March 7, 2012 23 U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics, FBI, Uniform Crime Reporting Program; Date of Version: September 2011 9
F11:
Substantial literature exists for the study and guidance of non-incarceration options, eligibility guidelines, EMP applications, best-practices, etc. (See, Appendix D) Conclusions The Grand Jury concludes:
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office:
Conduct an objective analysis and issue a report regarding the feasibility of an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) for selected pre-trial detainees. Include: eligibility and risk assessment program, comparative costs versus incarceration, societal risks and benefits; and potential reduction of jail overcrowding.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Office:
Should the objective analysis and the results of the report indicate that an EMP for selected pre-trial detainees be feasible, prepare an implementation plan to expand EMP for pre-trial detainees for full implementation within 12 months. This process will include: • A review of the available literature and best-practices in adjoining counties and elsewhere for possible application in the County’s expansion of EMP for pre-trial detainees. 10 • Implementation of a risk assessment tool, such as the Virginia Risk Assessment, for determining defendant eligibility for EMP for pre-trial detainees. 11
R3:
Of incarcerated PTDs, what types of charges are they facing? Using the list below, please rank the following nine charges from most frequent to least frequent with 1 being the most and 9 being the least. • immigration/other holds ________ • gang affiliation ________ • violent crimes ________ • multiple/ repeats ________ • sex crimes ________ • outstanding warrants ________ • DUI ________ • drug offences/trafficking ________ • other serious offenses ________
R4:
Of the total PTDs, what percentage face charges other than those listed above and are eligible for an electronic monitoring program (EMP)? ________
R5:
What is the approximate cost ($ / day / person) to sustain a PTD in your EMP? ________. Please include all direct and indirect costs (vendors fees, supervision, enforcement response, other functions' support, monitoring, administration, etc).
R6:
What is the equivalent, comparative approximate cost ($ / day / person) to keep a PTD incarcerated? ________. Please consider all direct and indirect costs.
R7:
Please provide copies or links to your public policies regarding eligibility criteria and processes for administering your EMP programs, especially those that might be relevant to PTDs.
R8:
How many PTDs are currently in your EMP? ________ How many total convicts (tried and sentenced) are in your EMP? ________
R9:
Do you have active, budgeted plans to expand EMP? ________ for only PDTs? ________
R10:
[OPTIONAL] Please provide any comments regarding other aspects of expanded utilization of EMP for PTDs, such as: • beneficial results re recidivism, re-entry, family, restitution opportunities, medical cost savings etc • opportunity to substantially reduce prison overcrowding • legal liability exposure or control restrictions, when releasing PTDs into EMP • citizens' safety concerns • added infra-structure and support costs, need for staff training/organization • other Thank you for taking the time to answer this survey. NONE OF YOUR RESPONSES WILL BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU OR YOUR SPECIFIC COUNTY. If you wish to receive a copy of our final published report, please note on your returned responses and we will forward a copy to you. 14
R11:
Substantial literature exists for the study and guidance of non-incarceration options, eligibility guidelines, EMP applications, best-practices, etc. (See,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
California AB354, signed by Governor Brown on September 29, 2010, amended California Health and Safety Code §§120325 and 120335 to require all incoming seventh through twelfth graders to be immunized against pertussis or have permanent medical exemptions (PMEs) or personal based exemptions (PBEs) on file before the start of the 2011 school year.
F2:
According to the law, students were to be prohibited from attending class at the start of the 2011 academic year until they had been vaccinated or submitted PMEs or PBEs. California SB614 extended the deadline for another 30 days.
F3:
The County Health Officer extended the deadline a second 30 days and urged principals to be flexible and individualized in enforcing this requirement.
F4:
The County Health Officer worked directly with the County Office of Education Superintendent to communicate requirements to all affected public and private schools.
F5:
The County Health Officer delayed opening public immunization clinics until October 2011, after the State deadline extension expired, as a means of encouraging as many students as possible to see their private physicians for this immunization and other health matters. Two hundred to three hundred students used this service.
F6:
Schools were required to report their data through the California Public Health Department-managed Shots for School.org website by December 1, 2011. As of January 24, 2012, seven San Mateo County schools had not yet reported their data. A continuation high school was the last to report on March 6, 2012.
F7:
The Shots for School.org website did not allow schools to report results until 100 percent of the students had a current Tdap immunization, a PME or a PBE on file, resulting in schools’ inability to report data even if only one student of hundreds was outstanding.
F8:
Individual school kindergarten immunization rate data are available by school on California’s CDPH Immunization Branch website and on BayCitizen.org. The pertussis data obtained by the Grand Jury was obtained from CDPH pre-publication with the assistance of a San Mateo County Immunization Program official.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Within 90 days of availability, post the San Mateo County pertussis immunization rates, by school, on its website, along with some targeted education interpreting the data and emphasizing the importance of immunizations. Alternatively, if the California Public Health Immunization Branch posts the data on its website, a link to that site, with appropriate background information, would be sufficient.
R2:
At the same time, similarly post data or a link to it for San Mateo County kindergarten immunization rates by school.
F9:
The overall reported pertussis immunization rate for the County’s incoming seventh through twelfth graders was 98.8 percent, a level that is sufficient to provide herd immunity and be considered a success. 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By August 2012, evaluate and apply appropriate lessons learned from the success of the pertussis immunization program to the childhood immunization program to increase the immunization rate of kindergarten students in San Mateo County. Attachment A Pertussis Assessment Totals for all Grades by San Mateo County School (As reported by the schools to the CDPH Shots for Schools Website) 11 12 13 14
F10:
The CDPH Immunization Branch expected to publish results by County, and possibly line-by-line for school, by the end of April 2012.
F11:
Four San Mateo County schools out of 130 reporting had PBE rates exceeding 10 percent, with three exceeding 25 percent. One additional school exceeded 10% exemptions due to two PMEs. All five were private, charter, or virtual (on-line) schools.
F12:
One on-line school, California Virtual Academy of the Jefferson School District, accounted for 34 percent of all PBEs in the County (173 out of 511). Only 95 of its students are San Mateo County residents, with 26 of those filing PBEs.
F13:
Adjusting the www. Shots for Schools.org data to include only enrolled students that are San Mateo County residents reduces the County PBE rate to 0.8 percent from 1.1 percent.
F14:
California is one of 18 states that allow PBEs for immunizations. AB 2109, submitted to the California legislature on Feb 23, 2012, would make it more difficult to claim a PBE by requiring “written statements from a medical practitioner stating that they (exemption requestors) have been informed of the risks and benefits of vaccines and the communicable disease they are said to prevent.” Conclusions
F2011:
Investigation This report is based on information and data obtained from the following sources: • Interview with San Mateo County Immunization Program Management • Interview with a senior San Mateo County Public Health Official • Interview with a San Mateo County High School Principal • Review of Pertussis Data reported to Shots for Schools.org website • Review of Informational Materials communicating State law requirements 9 http://shotsforschool.org/index.html. 4 • Review of State and County Public Health and Immunization program websites • Review of California AB 354, SB 614, AB2019 • Review of California Health and Safety Code Sections 120325 - 120380 • Review of BayCitizen.org website • Additional footnoted References Specific Additional Investigation Elements In addition to the details described in Background and the information obtained through the interviews and document reviews listed above, the Grand Jury evaluated the following: documentation associated with outbreak investigations; policy/guidance with respect to school compliance with the exclusion from class State mandate; the use of public clinics to support immunization efforts; and individual school data reported to the Shots for School website. Investigation of Outbreaks The Grand Jury reviewed documentation of a September 2011 pertussis outbreak infecting eight individuals at a Redwood City elementary school. A San Mateo County Public Health Communicable Disease Investigator coordinated the investigation. The documents provided included copies of the California Reportable Disease Information Exchange (Cal-REDIE) Outbreak Morbidity Report, and various letters, case notices, emails, handwritten progress notes, specimen collection forms, doctor and laboratory reports, letters to parents unable to be reached by phone, requests to pediatric clinics for pertussis vaccination records of patients, Pertussis (Whooping Cough) Exposure Notices, and doctor authorizations for student returns to school. The review of these documents indicated a prompt and effective response to control the outbreak by attempting to quickly identify those who may have been exposed to the eight infected individuals and to communicate exposure notices with specific instructions to all of them. Notices of “multiple case” exposures were distributed to school classes, soccer and football teams, a Cub Scout troop and individuals, based upon interviews with parents, teachers/coaches and students. These exposure notices were provided in English and Spanish. Exclusion From Class Mandate Enforcement In reviewing the program materials provided to schools, the Grand Jury noted that that the County Health Officer encouraged the schools to be flexible in their application of the state mandate that schools exclude non-immunized or exempt students from attending classes until documentation was submitted. Specific language supporting this follows: “As for the issue of the timing for exclusion, I urge you to be flexible and individualized. Frequently, those who are not compliant are the same ones that can’t afford to miss out on any of their education.”10 10Extracted from a County Health Officer email embedded in a September 16, 2011 email from County Superintendent of Schools to Superintendents, Subject: “FW: Tdap: proposed final letter and clinic flyers” 5 The County Health Officer separately explained that there was a low public-health risk to this flexible approach, given that 2011 was the year following the five-year disease peak when natural immunity would be highest and a relatively low number of cases could be expected. The Grand Jury did not attempt to determine how many districts or schools chose to enforce the State mandate versus adopt the more flexible approach sanctioned by the County Health Officer. Enforcing the State mandate would have impacted financial reimbursement from the State under the Average Daily Attendance funding system, where funding is based on a daily tally of the number of enrolled students who report for class. The County Health Officer acknowledged this as another factor considered in encouraging a flexible approach. Public Immunization Clinics In addition to extensive communication and information support, the County provided another service in support of compliance with the law. As noted in Background, it opened public immunization clinics where students could get the immunizations needed at no charge. As a matter of strategy, these clinics were not opened until October 2011, after the initial and extended 30-day deadlines expired. The County Health Officer wanted to encourage students to see their own physicians for these immunizations, as many students at this age become sexually active and have other new potential health issues and risks. The opportunity to discuss these issues with their doctors would not happen in the immunization clinic setting. According to the County Health Officer, only 200 - 300 students (of almost 47,000 immunized) received their immunizations at public clinics, evidence of the effectiveness of this strategy. Reporting of Results by Individual Schools The deadline for all schools to report their results to the Shots for School.org website was December 1, 2011. On January 24, 2012 the Grand Jury obtained from the CDPH Division of Communicable Disease Control a spreadsheet that included all of the San Mateo County data available at the time. (See, Attachment A: Pertussis Assessment Totals for all Grades by San Mateo County School.) Seven of 130 County schools had not yet reported their data. The Grand Jury obtained results for the seven remaining schools from a San Mateo County Immunization Program representative to complete the spreadsheet. The last school to report results, a continuation high school, did so on March 6, 2012. CDPH expects to release its final report at the end of April 2012. Since the system is locked to schools once they report their data, the Grand Jury has no reason to expect any changes to reported results when the final data are released. The Grand Jury determined the following: • The overall reported pertussis immunization rate for the County’s incoming seventh through twelfth graders was 98.8 percent (46,899 of 47,450 enrolled) vs. the County’s (informal) target of 85-90 percent, stated to be sufficient to provide herd immunity. • According to the CDPH spreadsheet, 511 (1.1 percent) students in County public and private schools filed Tdap PBEs. According to the County Health Officer, there are no anti-immunization groups active in the County at this time, a factor helping maintain high immunization rates. 6 • Forty-seven out of 130 schools reported 100 percent immunization rates and just five reported exemption rates exceeding 10 percent. Three of those exceeded 25 percent. They were all small private, charter, or virtual (on-line) schools. o Kaplan Academy (Bayshore Elementary District) (cid:1) 16 PBEs of 55 enrolled – 29.1 percent o California Virtual Academy (CAVA) (Jefferson Elementary District) (cid:1) 173 PBEs of 673 enrolled – 25.7 percent* o Linda Mar Educational Center (Pacifica District) (cid:1) 5 PBEs of 19 enrolled – 26.3 percent o Charter Learning Center (San Carlos Elementary District) (cid:1) 7 PBEs of 57 enrolled – 12.3 percent o Wings Learning Center (Private School) (cid:1) 2 PMEs of 15 enrolled – 13.3 percent *The large PBE numbers for CAVA (33.9 percent of the total PBEs for the County) prompted further Grand Jury investigation. CAVA is an on-line school operating out of Simi Valley, CA headquarters. The Grand Jury requested CAVA provide data on its San Mateo County residents only. CAVA reported an enrollment of 95 San Mateo County seventh through twelfth grade students. Of those, 26 (27.4 percent) submitted PBEs, very close to its total school-wide percentage of 25.7%.11 As a reference point for comparison purposes, the CDPH published 2010-11 immunization rates by school for the childhood vaccination series12. For those immunizations, the San Mateo County confirmed PBE rate was 2.04 percent, in the middle of the range of nine Bay Area counties and approximately the same rate as the statewide 2.16 percent.13 Bay Citizen.org has analyzed the Shots for School.org data for Bay Area counties and provides interactive graphs, summary data and search tools on its website enabling easy access to county, school district and individual school data for kindergarten immunizations. 14. According to the Bay Citizen site, these data are provided “so you can see which schools are most susceptible to an infectious outbreak.” It is unknown at this time whether the site will include similar seventh through twelfth grade pertussis data when it is released. The Grand Jury questioned whether the data reported by schools to the site was accurate. The CDPH Immunization Branch directs a “selective review” process that is executed at the County level. The State selects a certain number of schools at random to review immunization records for its students to compare results against recommended childhood immunizations.15 The County Health Officer has further expanded this effort to encompass additional schools. No evidence of deliberate misreporting has been uncovered, and individual errors and discrepancies are addressed as part of this process. (Schools are given a ten-day grace period to get student 11 Adjusting the CDPH spreadsheet data to exclude the non San Mateo County residents yields an even higher immunization rate of 99.1 percent versus 98.8 percent and lower PBE rate of 0.8 percent versus 1.1 percent. 12 http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/2010IZRateTable.pdf 13 http://www.baycitizen.org/data/immunizations/ 14 Ibid. This monitoring program currently surveys compliance with immunizations required up to two years of age 7 records complete either through immunizations or exemptions). According to the County Immunization Program representative interviewed, some schools are “amazingly compulsive” and others “less diligent” in their management of immunization records. It is not known at this time whether the State or County will extend the selective review process to include pertussis vaccination records in the future. Findings 1) California AB354, signed by Governor Brown on September 29, 2010, amended California Health and Safety Code §§120325 and 120335 to require all incoming seventh through twelfth graders to be immunized against pertussis or have permanent medical exemptions (PMEs) or personal based exemptions (PBEs) on file before the start of the 2011 school year. 2) According to the law, students were to be prohibited from attending class at the start of the 2011 academic year until they had been vaccinated or submitted PMEs or PBEs. California SB614 extended the deadline for another 30 days. 3) The County Health Officer extended the deadline a second 30 days and urged principals to be flexible and individualized in enforcing this requirement. 4) The County Health Officer worked directly with the County Office of Education Superintendent to communicate requirements to all affected public and private schools. 5) The County Health Officer delayed opening public immunization clinics until October 2011, after the State deadline extension expired, as a means of encouraging as many students as possible to see their private physicians for this immunization and other health matters. Two hundred to three hundred students used this service. 6) Schools were required to report their data through the California Public Health Department-managed Shots for School.org website by December 1, 2011. As of January 24, 2012, seven San Mateo County schools had not yet reported their data. A continuation high school was the last to report on March 6, 2012. 7) The Shots for School.org website did not allow schools to report results until 100 percent of the students had a current Tdap immunization, a PME or a PBE on file, resulting in schools’ inability to report data even if only one student of hundreds was outstanding. 8) Individual school kindergarten immunization rate data are available by school on California’s CDPH Immunization Branch website and on BayCitizen.org. The pertussis data obtained by the Grand Jury was obtained from CDPH pre-publication with the assistance of a San Mateo County Immunization Program official. 9) The overall reported pertussis immunization rate for the County’s incoming seventh through twelfth graders was 98.8 percent, a level that is sufficient to provide herd immunity and be considered a success. 8 10) The CDPH Immunization Branch expected to publish results by County, and possibly line-by-line for school, by the end of April 2012. 11) Four San Mateo County schools out of 130 reporting had PBE rates exceeding 10 percent, with three exceeding 25 percent. One additional school exceeded 10% exemptions due to two PMEs. All five were private, charter, or virtual (on-line) schools. 12) One on-line school, California Virtual Academy of the Jefferson School District, accounted for 34 percent of all PBEs in the County (173 out of 511). Only 95 of its students are San Mateo County residents, with 26 of those filing PBEs. 13) Adjusting the www. Shots for Schools.org data to include only enrolled students that are San Mateo County residents reduces the County PBE rate to 0.8 percent from 1.1 percent. 14) California is one of 18 states that allow PBEs for immunizations. AB 2109, submitted to the California legislature on Feb 23, 2012, would make it more difficult to claim a PBE by requiring “written statements from a medical practitioner stating that they (exemption requestors) have been informed of the risks and benefits of vaccines and the communicable disease they are said to prevent.” Conclusions 1) The County’s high pertussis immunization rate indicates that San Mateo County Public Health, in partnership with the County Office of Education and local School Districts, did an effective job implementing an aggressive new state mandate and provided a high level of protection against future pertussis outbreaks. The Grand Jury acknowledges their excellent work. 2) The decision to not restrict students from attending class before submitting required documentation was a low public health risk in 2011, given that pertussis tends to peak every five years and 2010 was a peak year. County Public Health and School Officials operated on the basis that the students least likely to provide the documentation on a timely basis were the ones who would be most harmed by being excluded from classes. Loss of Average Daily Attendance funds was apparently also a consideration. 3) The relatively low number of students getting immunizations through the public clinics indicated the success of the County Health Officer’s strategy to have as many students as possible schedule office visits with their individual physicians for the immunizations. 4) Childhood immunization reporting on the Shots for Schools website allows for a category of “conditional” where data are not yet available. The fact that the pertussis on-line reporting form did not allow for conditional reporting contributed to delays in reporting and required heavy follow-up by the State, County and School Districts to achieve closure. 5) The relatively high rates of PBEs in small charter, private or on-line schools are a lower public health risk than equivalent levels in large public or private schools. It does not 9 appear that schools actively encouraged PBE filings in any significant numbers in order to achieve faster closure and enable reporting of their data to the State. 6) Since high rates of PBEs from vaccines of any type could increase risks of contracting contagious, preventable diseases in a school setting, parents should have convenient access to such data for schools they are considering, similar to the access they have to academic test scores.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The AA/CA Report was due on December 7, 2010. OES requested and received a thirty-day extension from the Coastal Region Office of CAL EMA; a final AA/AC report was filed on January 7, 2011.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds that:
OES did not follow the recommended steps in the SMC “Operational Area” Emergency Operations Plan, EOC Guidebook and Checklists such as: conducting data gathering workshops to include key representatives of involved emergency response agencies; and the preparation/distribution of a draft AA/CA Report to the primary responders for review and approval.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Immediately direct that the OES escalate its professional attention to the importance and merit of the AA/CA exercise, and fully seek its value, instead of viewing the process, as one interviewee put it, “as a box-checking exercise.” 23 SMC “Operational Area” Emergency Operations Plan, EOC Guidebook and Checklist, Joseph R. Horton, Jr., March 2007, Section 3, After Action Reports, Tab 2 and Draft Revision, OES, 2011 14
R8:
Within 30 days, review and adhere to the recommended processes described in the San Mateo County “Operational Area” Emergency Operations Plan, EOC Guidebook and Checklists.24
F3:
The Grand Jury finds that:
OES conducted a debriefing session on November 23, 2010 in preparation of the AA/CA Report.
F4:
The Grand Jury finds that:
Representatives of San Bruno (police, fire, city management, emergency services) were neither invited nor included in the debriefing session held by OES on November 23, 2010.
F5:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The AA/CA Report filed by OES was not distributed to representatives of San Bruno police, fire, city management, or emergency services.
F6:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The San Mateo County “Operational Area” Emergency Operations Plan, EOC Guidebook and Checklists, which is currently in revision by OES, does not require a follow-up process to track progress and completion of improvement items.19
F7:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The task of compiling the information gathered from email questionnaires and the November 2010 debriefing meeting for the AA/CA Report was assigned to OES personnel within the Sheriff’s Office.
F8:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The OES Coordinator provided his superior with the final report for filing with the State and distribution to the County Manager’s Office, the County Communications Director, Supervisor Adrienne Tissier, Public Safety Communications, and members of the press who requested it.
F9:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The final AA/CA Report was not widely distributed; several of the individuals listed as a point of contact in the Report were unaware that their names were assigned to specific issues or problem statements, nor were they aware of the issues or problems identified within the Report. SMC “Operational Area” Emergency Operations Plan, EOC Guidebook and Checklists, Joseph R. Horton, Jr., Section 3, Tab 2, March 2007 11
F10:
The Grand Jury finds that:
According to the objectives and self-estimated completion dates on the AA/CA Report, the OES completed three of the 13 corrective items (items 9, 10, 12) on time.20
F11:
The Grand Jury finds that:
According to the objectives and self-estimated completion dates identified in the AA/CA Report, the OES did not complete nine of the 13 corrective items (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11) on time.21 Seven of those nine were still incomplete as of January 2012.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Within 90 days, design and offer refresher training for Incident Command System (ICS)- 300 and 400, clarify the cost issue with cities, and revise the course evaluation form to include a question asking participants what training OES can do that will keep public safety officers up-to-date and enable participants to respond more effectively during an emergency.
R9:
On an on-going basis, identify and pursue grant funding for essential and non-essential items involved in the anticipated relocation of the EOC office. Ibid. Attachment 1 AFTER ACTION/CORRECTIVE ACTION (AA/CA) REPORT POTENTIAL CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Identify issues, recommended solutions to those issues, and agencies that might be involved in implementing these recommendations. Address any problems noted in the SEMS/NIMS Function Evaluation. Indicate whether issues are an internal agency specific or have broader implications for emergency management. (Code: I= Internal; R =Regional, for example, OES Mutual Aid Region, Administrative Regions, geographic regions, S=Statewide implications) Item # Code Issue or Corrective Action / Agency(s)/ Depts. Point of Contact Estimated Problem Statement Improvement Plan To Be Involved Name / Phone Date of Completion Area for Improvement: Schedule EOC staff for OES Dec 2011 Continue to provide ICS300 ICS training in 2011 EOC Staff and ICS-400 training for 1 I EOC Staff and Department Heads Strength: Continue Continue to provide OES Dec 2011 scheduled training as shown training to the EOC staff EOC Staff 2 I in the OES Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan Area for Improvement: Need Discuss information OES July 2011 to better integrate Red Cross sharing with the Red Red Cross 3 I into the EOC Cross structure. Area for Improvement: Research and purchase OES July 2011 Develop large white board status boards for the 4 I “Status Boards” for use in EOC the EOC. Area For Improvement: Research alternate OES Dec 2011 Primary EOC (Jury location for the primary Assembly Room) has no cell EOC. phone coverage. For this Research alternate cell activation we used the phone connectivity options. I Emergency Command Center (ECC) in the OES office. The primary EOC needs call phone connectivity. Area for Improvement: Change procedures to OES July 2011 Ensure all agencies are made include using SMC Alert aware of when the Op Area to notify others of the 6 I EOC closes and concur with EOC status. the decision. AFTER ACTION/CORRECTIVE ACTION (AA/CA) REPORT Item # Code Issue or Corrective Action / Agency(s)/ Depts. Point of Contact Estimated Problem Statement Improvement Plan To Be Involved Name / Phone Date of Completion Area for Improvement: Work with County PIO OES July 2011 Training in opening and to schedule and conduct County PIO 7 I operating a JIC will be training Group conducted in the next year. Area for Improvement: Research solutions to OES Dec 2011 Cell Phone coverage at the cell phone connectivity Radio Shop 8 I scene became overloaded, issues in a major providing spotty coverage. incident. Strength: Planning Section Continue scheduled OES Dec 2011 staff was very competent training as shown in the 9 I and professional OES Multi-Year throughout the incident. Training and Exercise Plan Area for Improvement: Review procedure for OES Dec 2011 Communications between activating/assigning the ICP, EOC and Op Area Volunteer Amateur 10 I EOC needs improvement. Radio Operators to ICP Ham radio would have or EOC and update been excellent for this task. procedures as needed. Area for Improvement: Clarify radio distribution OES July 2011 Request for portable radios policy and modify if Radio Shop by the Health Department necessary. was denied by the radio 11 I shop. Need to clarify/modify policy regarding issuing radios. Area for Improvement: Change policy to call all OES July 2011 Activate the Finance EOC sections to the 12 I Section as soon as the EOC upon an EOC EOC is activated. activation. We can later release those no tended. RIMS is difficult to use Provide RIMS training OES Dec 2011 13 I to the EOC staff EOC Staff 17 Attachment 2 Incident Participant Feedback Form Glenview Fire, San Bruno, CA, September 9-13, 2010 Your name, title and agency is optional Please enter your responses in the form field or check box after the appropriate selection. Name: Title: Agency: Location: Field Response EOC/DOC Evacuation Area Local Assistance Center (LAC) Part I: Recommendations and Corrective Actions
F12:
The Grand Jury finds that:
According to the objectives and self-estimated completion dates identified in the AA/CA Report, the OES found corrective item 13 to be non-applicable because the Response Information Management System (RIMS) training is being replaced.
F13:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The Primary EOC for the County is the Jury Assembly Room in the basement of the Hall of Justice in Redwood City, with the Alternate EOC located in the OES office on the 4th floor of the County Office Building at 555 County Center.
F14:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The Jury Assembly Room has no dedicated EOC functionality or equipment; it has no OES electronics, it has few phone lines and limited cell phone coverage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Take all steps necessary to establish a fully-equipped and functional primary EOC within 180 days. The Grand Jury recommends that the Emergency Services Council and the Sheriff require its Office of Emergency Services:
F15:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The Jury Assembly Room is designated as the Primary EOC because it is the largest unclaimed (by other agencies) space in the Hall of Justice and can be emptied of civilians awaiting jury duty during regular business hours. With respect to the San Bruno Disaster and response by OES:
F16:
The Grand Jury finds that:
A Joint Information Center (JIC) was not in place at the disaster site.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Within 120 days, in conjunction with the other responsible agencies, formalize the Joint Information Center procedures. Define the expectations, structure, roles, and function of the County Information officer, the City Information Officers, and the public agency Public Information Officers.
F17:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The County Health Department requested portable radios to use after the immediate disaster phase of the San Bruno incident; the Information Services Department’s Radio Shop denied its request based on the requirements stated in the Trunked Radio Cache Guidelines.22
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Within 90 days, design, upgrade and share processes and procedures with OES customer/supplier organizations and agencies such as the Radio Shop to update and communicate the Trunked Radio Cache Process. OES should also communicate with other County agencies like Health and Human Services to discuss their prospective roles in major emergencies.
F18:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The AA/CA Report recommended white status boards be purchased to use in the EOC. These boards have not been acquired as of February 2012 due to “budget constraints.” The cost of four status boards is approximately $3,200.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Within 30 days, purchase the status white boards for use during a county-wide emergency.
F19:
Cell phone coverage at the fire scene was overloaded and spotty. OES acknowledges widespread use of mobile phones for official business. The contact person identified in the AA/CA Report for Item 8 was unaware that it was his responsibility to address this issue. Attachment 1- After Action/Corrective Action Report - Potential Corrective Actions, January 7, 2011 21 Ibid. Trunked Cache Radio Guidelines, August 2007. 12
F20:
At the Red Cross shelter established at the Glenview site, each registered person was asked to sign a Red Cross statement outlining Red Cross’ commitment to keep information confidential. Restrictions in the Red Cross confidentiality statement prevented the release of identities of persons under Red Cross care, which in turn impeded public safety officers attempting to determine if all residents had evacuated the disaster area. Conclusions The Grand Jury concludes that:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Within 60 days, meet with the Red Cross to develop and finalize a mutually satisfactory method for public safety officers to immediately obtain client identity information of those in Red Cross care at an emergency site.
F2010:
As a result, the County was required to complete and submit to the State an After Action/Corrective Action Report (AA/CA Report) to document response activities, identify problems/successes during the response effort, and define action plans for implementing improvements. The AA/CA Report identified 13 items for improvement.2 The Grand Jury 1 After Action/Corrective Action Report, City of San Bruno EOC Preliminary Report, December 27, 2010. The i nfrastructure damage estimate was set in a negotiated trust fund between San Bruno and Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the operator of the pipeline. Those monies will go to rebuild streets, sewer lines and other municipal property damaged in the explosion. See, San Francisco Chronicle, February 18, 2012, Sorry isn’t enough, PG&E at p.A11. See, Attachment 1, After Action/Corrective Action Report – Potential Corrective Actions, January 7, 2011. One of the items originally listed (Item 13) required RIMS retraining to the OES staff by December 2011. However, after t he AA/CA report was submitted, it was decided that RIMS procedures would be reviewed and updated resulting in no retraining before the procedures update was completed. As of February 2012 no RIMS retraining has been conducted. 1 conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and made site visits during its investigation of the 13 items to determine if they were implemented and completed on a timely basis. The Grand Jury found that nine of the 13 items were not completed according to their estimated completion date and seven of those were still incomplete as of January 2012. Item 13 was found to be non-applicable because the Response Information Management System (RIMS) is being replaced. The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff require the OES to revise its AA/CA Report guidelines to include a formal follow-up procedure to measure progress and completion of improvement plans. The Grand Jury also recommends that OES meet with the local chapter of the American Red Cross to mutually develop a plan for obtaining identity information collected by the Red Cross at the emergency site. Finally, the Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff’s Office take all necessary steps to establish a fully-equipped and functional County Emergency Office Center (EOC) within 180 days. The current Jury Assembly Room in the Hall of Justice is designated as the primary EOC for large-scale emergency coordination. However, the Grand Jury finds that it is unsuitable as a primary EOC due to its daily use by hundreds of citizens, extremely limited cell phone receptivity, lack of adequate “hardline” telephone connections, and lack of existing electronic hardware. In a county of nearly 750,000 citizens, located in a recognized earthquake zone, large-scale emergencies require a fully-equipped coordination site for emergency services. The Grand Jury highly commends the dedicated performance of all public and private service employees (fire, police, Sheriff’s Deputies, Red Cross, emergency providers, volunteers) on September 10 and for months thereafter. The City of San Bruno also singled out the County Director of Communications, who served as the Public Information Officer (PIO), and the County OES District Coordinator for their exemplary performance assisting San Bruno during the emergency and recovery phases of the incident. We owe all of them our thanks. Background Emergency and Response On September 9, 2010, at about 6:11 p.m., a massive explosion and fire fueled by a ruptured natural gas pipeline spread through the Glenview area in San Bruno. The Glenview fire was among the worst disasters in San Bruno and County history in terms of loss of life, injuries, and property damage. With more than 500 firefighters and police officers responding, and approximately 400 homes evacuated, the State of California declared a State of Emergency for San Mateo County on September 10, 2010. At 6:21 p.m., the San Bruno Fire Department immediately “sized up the situation and established the Glenview Command at the San Bruno Avenue and Glenview Avenue and requested mutual aid.” 3 The San Bruno Police Department established a law command post at 6:46 pm and the City activated its emergency operations center to support the Glenview Incident Command Post 3 After Action/Corrective Action Report, City of San Bruno Preliminary Report, December 27, 2010. 2 (ICP), which was concurrently set up at the incident site.4 At approximately 7:09 p.m., the Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) activated its Operational Area EOC near the same location to support San Bruno’s efforts and to allocate County resources assigned to the incident response. OES also activated its EOC in the Sheriff’s Office at 555 County Center, Redwood City at 6:17 p.m. The Sheriff’s OES activated the Telephone Emergency Notification System at 7:47 pm to send a voice message to the homes within three quarters of a mile of the Glenview/Earl intersection instructing voluntary evacuation. From September 9, 2010 through September 12, 2010, the City of San Bruno maintained a shelter for displaced residents, supported by the Red Cross and various County agencies. OES assisted in setting up a Local Assistance Center to enable State, County, City and non-profit agencies to offer services to affected residents. Due to the involvement of the public utility, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and the loss of life and property, the disaster received nationwide media attention. Public Information Officers (PIOs) and other County employees were assigned to assist with communication activities in order to provide accurate, consistent information. The San Bruno emergency operations remained fully operational to support the Incident Command Post for two weeks and transitioned to a duty officer on September 21, 2010.6 The County deactivated its EOC on September 13, 2010 and assigned a Liaison Officer to San Bruno’s Command Staff to coordinate County resources as needed and to assist the San Bruno City Manager in the preparation of the City of San Bruno EOC Preliminary Report of December 27, 2010. The recovery and rebuilding efforts still continue over a year and a half later. Functions Performed by San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services during the San Bruno Emergency On September 10, 2010 and thereafter, the OES performed the following functions in response to the San Bruno emergency: Onset Response: • Helped establish an Incident Command System at two sites in San Bruno • Set up EOC at the Sheriff's Office at 555 County Road, Redwood City • Coordinated assignments and equipment deliveries from the County and other agencies • Activated the Telephone Emergency Notification System to instruct residents to evacuate • Activated the SMC Alert System to inform County staff of incident On-Going Response: • Coordinated daily EOC staff meetings and briefings with San Bruno and County and State emergency management agencies 4 The purpose of an EOC is to facilitate a coordinated response by the Director of Emergency Services, the emergency staff, and agency representatives from outside organizations. The ICP is used by the incident Commanders from responsible agencies (fire, law, etc.) to manage the incident. EOC Handbook and Checklist, . After Action/Corrective Action Report, Sheriff’s Area Office of Emergency Services, January 7, 2011. After Action/Corrective Action Report, City of San Bruno Preliminary Report, December 27, 2010. 3 • Coordinated all County agencies active at the scene • Assisted in opening and operating the Local Assistance Center for disaster victims • Worked with San Bruno and the State to make applications for aid from FEMA and the California Disaster Assistance Act7 • Provided OES personnel to support San Bruno through the initial recovery phase that lasted until October 12, 2010.8 San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services The Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) provides a variety of emergency services to the cities of San Mateo County. Within the OES office, there are 11 employees: one Sheriff’s Lieutenant, one Supervising Coordinator, four District Coordinators, two Sheriff’s Sergeants, one Deputy Sheriff, one Fiscal Office Specialist, and one Storekeeper. One of the District Coordinators is a part-time employee. The OES also has several units with specialized skills, mostly staffed by volunteers.9 The SWAT team is not a volunteer unit, but a team composed of sworn members of the Sheriff's office. Many of the unit members are certified in emergency medical response and assist other public safety officers across the County in providing situational care and protection for the citizens of San Mateo County. Additional OES Units with Specialized Skills Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) Dive/Cliff/Marine Unit *Air Squadron *Bay Area Mountain Rescue Unit (BAMRU) *Communication Unit *Explorer Post 810 (Law Enforcement) *Search and Rescue 830 (Search and Rescue) *Mounted Search and Rescue *San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Search and Technical Team *Involved in the San Bruno emergency efforts. The OES also provides regular coordinated emergency planning and training services to the 20 cities and towns within the County and a wide variety of support and resources to assist cities in dealing with disaster and other emergency situations. The OES maintains an amateur radio repeater for use by the amateur radio community. 7www.calema.CA.gov/.../California-Disaster-assistance-Act-(CDAA).aspx 8 Equipment deliveries included shelter trailers, generators, security/road closure barricades, mobile lighting units, Mobile Communications Units, radios, batteries, portable toilets, mobile hand-washing units, personal protective equipment, water, etc. provided by OES. Personnel assignments coordinated by OES included the following entities: Sheriff’s Office, Co/Cal Fire, Public Works, Health and Human Services, District Attorney’s Office, County Manager’s Office, County Animal Control, Emergency Services Coordinators from cities/special districts throughout the County. (Per email from OES, January 7, 2011). 9 http://smcdirectory.cosanmateo.ca.us/searchUsersForm.html. The OES is funded and governed by the Emergency Services Council through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that includes the 20 cities and towns and the County of San Mateo. The cities and towns of the JPA contribute money to fund the JPA based upon a formula that takes into account the population and average assessed property value of each. The County then matches the funds contributed by the cities and towns. The remainder of the OES budget comes from State and Federal Emergency Management Assistance program funds.10 The budget for OES in 2010-2011 was $1,285,846.11 The Current Location of the Primary Emergency Operations Center in San Mateo County The County’s primary EOC is the Jury Assembly Room located in the basement of the Hall of Justice in Redwood City. This location is used for serious and prolonged emergencies, and overrides everyday use by the Superior Courts. The Jury Assembly Room, while spacious, is clearly sub-optimal for emergency services use. At minimum, usage requires spontaneous relocation of personnel, office and electronic equipment, and operation manuals from other buildings. The subterranean location has severely limited telephone and cell phone coverage, and no dedicated EOC functionality. During the Glenview emergency, the OES utilized the alternate EOC, a smaller, dedicated fully equipped room in a County Office Building at 555 County Center. Red Cross Involvement in the San Bruno Emergency The OES and the American Red Cross work together to assure organization, readiness, and response to an emergency. At Glenview, the Red Cross immediately opened a shelter at the nearby Bayhill Shopping Center and welcomed all who needed help with food and shelter. A representative from the Red Cross registered each person who entered the shelter and took personal information such as name, address, family members to contact and medical issues. Each registered person received a confidentiality statement from Red Cross acknowledging the Red Cross’ agreement to keep the registered person’s information confidential. This statement reads in part: The relationships between the American Red Cross and the people who come to the American Red Cross for disaster relief services are confidential. Safeguarding the trust of our clients is an important part of the organization’s obligation to the people and communities it serves. All American Red Cross employees and volunteers will observe the principle of confidentiality in obtaining, using, protecting and releasing information about American Red Cross clients.12 The confidentiality statement restricted the Red Cross from disclosing the identities of those in Red Cross care and hindered attempts by public safety officers to locate residents and to know that all residences were vacated. 10 http://www.sheriff.com/divisions/operations-division. This is exclusive of outside funding of $215, 833 and the Hazardous Material Program of the budget, per OES email dated January 13, 2012. American Red Cross Shelter Registration Form 5972, Revision February 2007 and Red Cross Commitment to Confidentiality, May 2007 5 Radio Shop Involvement in the San Bruno Emergency The County Radio Shop, which is run by the Information Services Department, is responsible for the direct distribution of its emergency backup radios to agencies or persons in need.13 The radios are intended for short-term use during the disaster phase of the incident. During the recovery phase of the Glenview explosion, the County Health Department requested radios to be used to survey the neighborhood. Since this was outside of the immediate disaster phase, that request was denied. Declaration of Emergency/The After Action/Corrective Action Report The City Manager of San Bruno and the County Manager each declared a local state emergency and the State followed with its declaration of a state of emergency on September 10, 2010. The declaration of a state of emergency required OES to file its AA/CA Report with the Coastal Region Office of the California Emergency Management Agency (CAL EMA) on January 7, 2011, in compliance with the procedures and regulations of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) regulation Section 2450(a). Section 2450(a) of the SEMS regulations states: …Any city, city and county, or county declaring a local emergency for which the governor proclaims a state of emergency, and any state agency responding to that emergency shall complete and transmit an after action report to [the State of California] OES within ninety (90) days of the close of the incident as specified in the California Code of Regulations, section 2900(j).14 San Mateo County’s revised “Operational Area” Emergency Operations Plan, which was released on January 28, 2011, included the above SEMS requirement.15 The AA/CA Report is designed to fulfill the following criteria: • Provide a source for documenting response and early recovery activities; • Identify problems and successes during emergency operations; • Analyze the effectiveness of the different components of SEMS; and • Describe and define a plan of corrective action for implementing recommended improvements to existing emergency response efforts.16 As stated above, San Mateo County was required to file an AA/CA Report with the CAL EMA within the 90-day period. The report was due on December 7, 2010. An OES representative requested and received a thirty-day extension from CAL EMA. The AA/AC Report was filed on January 7, 2011, (See, Attachment 1). Trunked Radio Cache Guidelines, August 2007 14 http://www.oes.ca.gov/Operational/OESHome.nsf/PDF/State%20Gov.%20Code/$file/StateBGovtCode. San Mateo County “Operational Area” Emergency Operations Plan; Released January 28, 2011. 16 http://cms.calema.ca.gov/prep_after_corrective_action.aspx 6 Process Used to Create the AA/CA Report To initiate work on the AA/CA Report, the Sheriff’s OES called for a County department debriefing meeting to be held on November 23, 2010.17 The focus and attendees were as follows: Date and Time: Tuesday, November 23, 2010, from 8:30 am to 12:00 noon Focus: Gather input and feedback from a variety of individuals to create the required AA/CA report Attendees: Professionals from several different departments County Commands (County Manager, Public Information, Safety/Human Resources, and County Counsel) Representatives from the Sheriff’s Office, the Coroner’s Office, the EMS branch, the Public Safety Communications branch, the Health/Public/ Environmental/Behavioral branch, the Care and Shelter branch, and Public Works Representatives from the Planning Section, Logistics Section, and Finance The Assessor’s office The District Attorney’s office OES shared [sic] information about the Incident Command Post, the evacuation center, the San Bruno EOC, and the Emergency Operations activations Based on the feedback from outside agencies and the debriefing notes (no formal meeting minutes were published), an OES Coordinator completed the AA/CA Report.18 The report was filed with the State on January 7, 2011 and distributed to the County Manager’s Office, the County Communications Director, Supervisor Adrienne Tissier (representative of the Board of Supervisors on the Emergency Services Council), Public Safety Communications, and members of the media who requested it. The public distribution of the report was determined by expressed interest. San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services September 9, 2010 Glenview Gas Pipeline Explosion and Fire County Department Debriefing for After Action Report and Improvement Plan, Agenda for Tuesday, November 23, 2010, 8:30 – 12:00 noon. OES emailed a questionnaire to some of the agencies to request feedback. OES unable to provide date the email questionnaire was sent and to whom. See, Attachment 2 – Incident Participant Form. Summary of the AA/CA Report The required AA/CA Report filed by OES (Attachment 1) identified 13 potential corrective actions. Following is a summary of the AA/CA Report with issue, responsible agency, estimated completion date, and current status. # Issue and Corrective Action Plan Agency Estimated Current Involved Completion Status as of Date (Met January /Not Met?] 2012 1 Continue to provide ICS-300 & 400 OES Dec 2011 Incomplete training; schedule EOC staff for ICS EOC Staff Not Met training 2 Continue multi-year training; continue to OES Dec 2011 Incomplete provide training to EOC staff EOC Staff Not Met 3 Integrate Red Cross into EOC structure; OES July 2011 Incomplete discuss info sharing with Red Cross. Red Cross Not Met 4 Develop large status boards for EOC; re- OES July 2011 Incomplete search and purchase status boards for EOC Not Met 5 Question use of current jury room as EOC; OES Dec 2011 Incomplete research alternate location for EOC; Not Met research cell phone connectivity options 6 Review Operational Area EOC awareness; OES July 2011 Complete change procedures to include SMC Alert Not Met 7 Consider joint information center OES July 2011 Complete establishment at site; work with County County Not Met PIO to schedule and conduct training PIO Group 8 Research cell phone coverage at disaster OES Dec 2011 Incomplete site; research solutions to cell phone Radio Not Met connectivity issues in major event Shop 9 Continue scheduled training for more OES Dec 2011 Complete Planning Section Staff Met 10 Review Ham Operator activation; review OES Dec 2011 Complete procedure for activating/assigning Met Volunteer HAM to ICP or EOC; update procedures as needed. Clarify radio cache distribution; clarify OES July 2011 Incomplete radio distribution policy and modify if Radio Not Met necessary. Shop 12 Activate finance section earlier; change OES July 2011 Complete policy to call all EOC sections to EOC Met upon an EOC activation. Provide RIMS training to the EOC staff. OES Dec 2011 N/A (Note: RIMS is being replaced) EOC Staff 8 Investigation The Grand Jury gathered and reviewed data from numerous sources including: • Nineteen interviews with 14 members of the San Mateo County departments listed in the AA/CA Report (County Manager’s Office, Information Services, Sheriff’s Office, OES, Health & Human Services), and the American Red Cross, the City of San Bruno, and the San Bruno Police and Fire Departments. Interviewees included administrators, managers, supervisors, and staff of these entities/organizations. • The required AA/CA Report filed by the County OES (Attachment 1) that identified 13 corrective actions. Item 13 was found to be non-applicable. • The City of San Bruno’s EOC Preliminary AA/CA Report, filed by the City of San Bruno Preliminary Report, December 27, 2010. • Tours of the gas pipeline explosion area in the Glenview neighborhood in San Bruno, the Emergency Control Center in the OES office, and the Jury Assembly Room at the Courthouse in Redwood City. • The Emergency Operations Center Handbook and Checklist (no published date) • The SMC Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan, EOC Guidebook (March 2007 and January 28, 2011 draft revision) • The Sheriff’s Office OES & Emergency Services Bureau Presentation, October 19, 2011 • Sheriff’s Area OES Customer Service Questionnaire (2011) • San Mateo County’s Multiyear Training and Exercise Plans 2010-2011 • ICS-300 Student Manual, Unit 3, Unified Command (September 2005) • Course descriptions and rosters for: Incident Command System (ICS) training (quarterly 2011), Joint Information Center Training (April 2011), Joint Commercial Aircraft Crash Exercise and Checklist (October 2011) • Incident Command System training course student evaluations (August – November 2011) • Agenda for After Action Report and Improvement Plan debriefing session November 23, 2010 • Written responses to follow-up interview questions from OES, Information Services and the County Manager’s Office (October 2011- January 2012) 9 • San Mateo County Health System San Bruno Fire 2010 AAR/Improvement Plan, November 2010 • American Red Cross Commitment to Confidentiality document (exemplar - May 2007) • American Red Cross Shelter Registration Form (exemplar – February 2007) • Trunked Radio Cache Guidelines (August 2007) • San Mateo County Emergency Operations Plan EOC Activation Appendix (December 2011) 10 Findings The Grand Jury finds that: 1. The AA/CA Report was due on December 7, 2010. OES requested and received a thirty-day extension from the Coastal Region Office of CAL EMA; a final AA/AC report was filed on January 7, 2011.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
There have been 97 reports of circulation entrapments nationwide from 1999 – 2010, 36 of which involved fatalities or injuries in public pools or spas. None occurred in San Mateo County. 12
F2:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
California Health and Safety Code §116064.2 required pools and spas to be closed on July 1, 2010 if they did not comply with anti-entrapment requirements of the law. EHD did not ensure closure of all non-VGB compliant pools on that date, nor has EHD initiated any enforcement actions despite its June 21, 2010 Notice to Close Pool/Spa letter warning of that action.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Immediately establish a firm deadline for closure of any public pools and spas that are non-VGB/ CHSC 116064.2 compliant until acceptable modifications are completed and documentation provided. Communicate that deadline as soon as possible to all impacted owners in writing.
R2:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Confirm all pools and spas closed by owners or EHD due to non-VGB compliance remain closed until corrections are verified. Where signs have been removed and pools unlocked, close the pools and impose additional inspection fees and initiate enforcement action for non-compliance where appropriate.
F3:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
It has taken more than 15 months since the July 1, 2010 final compliance date of CHSC §116064.2 to get the approximately 448 owners/operators of public pools/spas that were non-VGB compliant at the time to come into compliance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Immediately establish a firm deadline for closure of any public pools and spas that are non-VGB/ CHSC 116064.2 compliant until acceptable modifications are completed and documentation provided. Communicate that deadline as soon as possible to all impacted owners in writing.
F4:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
EHD was only able to provide the Grand Jury with one letter sent to a non-VGB compliant pool owner after July 1, 2010, stating a specific timeframe for compliance to avoid closure.
F5:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
The decision to not strictly enforce CHSC §116064.2 on its final compliance date, and the rationale to justify it, was made at a level below the EHD Director.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Institute a policy before June 1, 2012 that requires the EHD Director to approve, in writing, enforcement procedures for any new regulations that materially affect public safety.
F6:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Three pools that had not yet achieved VGB compliance or were pending confirmation of compliance were still operating at the close of this investigation on September 30, 2011. There were special circumstances associated with each of them requiring either custom fabrication of parts or confirmation that work completed met VGB standards. EHD did not consider any of them to be hazardous.
F7:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
One hundred sixty-eight (168) pools previously determined to be VGB compliant became non-compliant due to a May 2011 safety-related recall of drain covers by their manufacturers. Those pools are being allowed to operate with this condition. EHD notifications to owners were in process during the course of this investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Develop guidelines before June 1, 2012 that define when additional inspection fees should be imposed on owners due to repeat violations or failure to correct violations in a timely fashion.
F8:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Two pools reported by EHD on September 9, 2011 to have been closed by EHD due to non-VGB compliance were observed to be open and to have one or more children swimming in them when initially visited on September 5, 2011. Subsequently, on September 30, 2011, EHD reported that one “appears visually compliant” and that documentation has been requested to confirm that status. The other was found, on September 29, 2011, to be closed with an EHD sign dated September 23, 2011. Two EHD representatives noted pools closed by EHD have been occasionally found reopened by either owner/operators or tenants before changes are made and approved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Confirm all pools and spas closed by owners or EHD due to non-VGB compliance remain closed until corrections are verified. Where signs have been removed and pools unlocked, close the pools and impose additional inspection fees and initiate enforcement action for non-compliance where appropriate.
F9:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
According to EHD policy, the inspection schedule and frequency for year-round pools and spas are the same as for seasonal pools and spas.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Amend before June 1, 2012 the policy governing pool and spa inspections to stipulate that, at a minimum, pools that operate year round, and have a history of violations, be inspected at least one additional time outside of the April to September period.
F10:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
EHD used its Envision system’s capabilities to effectively track and report the status of initial VGB compliance. The Pool Program Specialist took primary responsibility for ensuring its correctness. The tracking of drain cover recall-related VGB status changes, however, was being managed manually outside the system. 13
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Immediately begin tracking the VGB compliance status of pools and spas impacted by the drain cover recall in the Envision system to achieve consistency and provide full reporting capabilities.
F11:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Inspectors are inconsistent in their completion of Inspection Forms, ratings of pools, and their diligence in accurately reporting activities and time allocations in the Envision system. Inspection Forms do not include a specific field for indicating VGB status, contributing to the inconsistencies in reporting.
Related Recommendations (4)
R3:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Immediately begin tracking the VGB compliance status of pools and spas impacted by the drain cover recall in the Envision system to achieve consistency and provide full reporting capabilities.
R6:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Revise Inspector training and Inspection Forms before June 1, 2012 to increase standardization of reporting, align with Envision database fields, increase consistency of 15 ratings, and support a move to an electronic Field Reporting System with on-line Inspection Forms, automatic error checking and transcription error-free database updates.
R8:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Immediately institute a practice of maintaining written documentation of verbal communications with pool owners or representatives that relate to conditions that may lead to pool closures or enforcement actions.
R9:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Continue ongoing efforts to improve the accuracy of reporting of time allocated to the pool program by administrators and inspectors, and use that data to develop a new fee structure that fully and consistently covers program expenses. Attachment 1: 12/30/08 EHD Advisory Notice 17 Attachment 2: 1/15/10 EHD California VGB Letter 18 Attachment 3: 6/21/10 EHD Notice to Close-Pool/Spa Letter 19 Attachment 4: Summary of Other Bay Area Counties’ VGB Status San Mateo County 1 County 2 County 3 County 4 # Public 1044 3406 159+ 1610 548 Pools/Spas #VGB 40 46 6 Not ≈10 Compliant provided Inactive #Non-VGB up to 448 2690 ≈69 ≈160 0 Compliant 7/1/10 # Non-VGB 3 1837# 1(0)* 0 0 Compliant 9/30/1118 Accept State No No Yes, but Yes** No Form as verified at sufficient? next routine inspection + 159 facility permits are associated with 270 total bodies of water. System requires all bodies of water to be in compliance for the facility to be in compliance # 1837 represents the number of pools where all compliance requirements have not been met, which includes submission of the Compliance Form and Final Inspection. The number that have not had physical modifications made was not provided separately. * Depends on interpretation of design. Pool in question is a pool where one can swim in place. Use is for physical therapy. Technically, one wall is a suction device to create the action required. ** “For the 2011 pool season, staff was instructed and the operators were advised that the pool/spa remain closed if not in compliance with AB1020. We have received the State Compliance Forms…We put a lot of weight on the sign off from the qualified professional listed on the State Compliance Form.” 18 For this purpose, we requested data exclusive of the impact of the May 2011 manufacturers’ drain cover recall discussed on of this report. 20
F12:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Pool Program and administrative management at EHD have initiated actions to develop new standards and improve time and labor reporting accuracy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Continue ongoing efforts to improve the accuracy of reporting of time allocated to the pool program by administrators and inspectors, and use that data to develop a new fee structure that fully and consistently covers program expenses. Attachment 1: 12/30/08 EHD Advisory Notice 17 Attachment 2: 1/15/10 EHD California VGB Letter 18 Attachment 3: 6/21/10 EHD Notice to Close-Pool/Spa Letter 19 Attachment 4: Summary of Other Bay Area Counties’ VGB Status San Mateo County 1 County 2 County 3 County 4 # Public 1044 3406 159+ 1610 548 Pools/Spas #VGB 40 46 6 Not ≈10 Compliant provided Inactive #Non-VGB up to 448 2690 ≈69 ≈160 0 Compliant 7/1/10 # Non-VGB 3 1837# 1(0)* 0 0 Compliant 9/30/1118 Accept State No No Yes, but Yes** No Form as verified at sufficient? next routine inspection + 159 facility permits are associated with 270 total bodies of water. System requires all bodies of water to be in compliance for the facility to be in compliance # 1837 represents the number of pools where all compliance requirements have not been met, which includes submission of the Compliance Form and Final Inspection. The number that have not had physical modifications made was not provided separately. * Depends on interpretation of design. Pool in question is a pool where one can swim in place. Use is for physical therapy. Technically, one wall is a suction device to create the action required. ** “For the 2011 pool season, staff was instructed and the operators were advised that the pool/spa remain closed if not in compliance with AB1020. We have received the State Compliance Forms…We put a lot of weight on the sign off from the qualified professional listed on the State Compliance Form.” 18 For this purpose, we requested data exclusive of the impact of the May 2011 manufacturers’ drain cover recall discussed on of this report. 20
F13:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
The Pool Program does not receive County General Fund support and is expected to manage expenses to revenues derived from the approved inspection fee structure. The Pool Program revenues did not cover pool program expenses, after overhead application, during the last three fiscal years (2009 – 2011) spanning the VGB compliance period. Conclusions The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:
F2008:
The purpose of the VGB Act is to prevent drain entrapment and child drowning in public swimming pools and spas. It imposes a requirement that all drain/grate covers meet a specific design standard (ANSI/ASME A112.19.8-2007). Other provisions define acceptable drain configurations and anti-entrapment systems.2 The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and State Attorney Generals are empowered to enforce the Act. Violations of required equipment standards for public pools and spas are subject to civil or criminal penalties, up to a maximum penalty of $1,825 million or imprisonment for willful violations. The California Version of the VGB Act - AB 1020 California Assembly Bill 1020 was codified as California Health and Safety Code Section 116064.2. (CHSC §116064.2). It was passed to implement new requirements to prevent entrapment hazards in public swimming pools and spas.4 Gov. Schwarzenegger signed it on October 11, 2009 and it went into effect on January 1, 2010 with only minor differences from the VGB Act. The final compliance date was established as July 1, 2010. Its stated purpose is to ensure that California law is in conformance with new federal safety standards (the VGB Act) by (1) adopting the federal swimming pool and spa drain cover standard and (2) ensuring that public swimming pools and spas are equipped with proper safety devices.5 1 http://www.virginiagraemebaker.com/Page2.html. 2 15USC 8001, §1404 (C) (1)(A)(ii) of the VGB Act. The VGB Act, June 18, 2008 Staff Interpretation of Section 1404: “Federal Swimming Pool and Spa Drain Cover Standard”, p.6, “Enforcement Authority”. 4 “…a swimming pool, hot tub, spa, or non-portable wading pool …(A) Open to the public generally, whether for a fee or free of charge, (B) Open exclusively to members of an organization and their guests, residents of a multi-unit apartment building, apartment complex, or other multifamily residential area, or patrons of a hotel or other public accommodations facility or (C) Located on the premises of an athletic club, or public or private school.” 5 Compliance Information for the Public Pool and Spa Safety Act - Assembly Bill 1020. Specifically, per CHSC §116064.2, all public swimming pools constructed after January 1, 2010 are required to meet the new standard, and all public pools constructed prior to January 1, 2010 “shall be retrofitted to comply with these requirements to prevent entrapment by July 1, 2010.” 6 Pools retrofitted between December 19, 2007 and January 1, 2010 that complied with the VGB Act were exempted, contingent upon certain documentation being filed. Local enforcement authority is provided to the City and County Departments of Environmental Health. Penalties for violating CHSC §116064.2 are: “Every person who violates any provision of this article …is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more that one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.”7 The San Mateo County EHD handles enforcement for the VGB Act for both the County and its cities. The San Mateo County Response to the VGB Act and CHSC §116064.2 On December 30, 2008 the County Environmental Health Department (EHD) sent an “Advisory Notice” to owners/operators of public pools, spas and wade pools located in San Mateo County (Attachment #1) informing them of the federal VGB Act, its requirements and the effective date of December 19, 2008. The letter specifically noted that the “CPSC is the primary enforcement agency for the Act and that they have the authority to close any public pool or spa found not to be in compliance on December 19, 2008.” It added that the “San Mateo County Environmental Health Department cannot enforce the standards locally unless the California state law is amended to include the VGB Act.” On January 15, 2010, EHD sent letters, subject “California Virginia Graeme Baker Act (VGB)” (Attachment #2) to the 80% of the County pool and spa owners/operators who had not yet complied with the federal VGB Act. The notice stated …as of January 1, 2010 local authorities are mandated to enforce its provisions. The new statute has July 1, 2010 as the final compliance date in California. If your pools are not in compliance by this date, you will be required to close your pool(s) to the public until they meet all of the new law’s requirements. (emphasis in original). The letter also contained information about local contractors, permitting requirements, and the state surcharge fee. On June 21, 2010, EHD sent “Notice to Close – Pool /Spa” letters (Attachment #3) to owners who had not yet complied with the VGB law according to EHD records. This letter stated The law requires owners to retrofit their pool/spa drains no later than July 1, 2010 or voluntarily close their pools to the public until brought into compliance…. If voluntary closure is what you choose… You will be required to post closure signs and lock all entrances to your pools. Your district 6 Ibid. California Health & Safety Code §116065. 3 inspector will periodically conduct inspections to ensure your pools remain closed, and are being maintained properly. Failure on your part to comply shall result in an enforcement action to seek legal remedy. (emphasis in original) The Incidence Rate of Entrapment Fatalities and Injuries 8 There have been no reported public pool or spa fatalities or injuries in San Mateo County due to drain entrapment from 1999 through 2010. On a national level, as an indication of the seriousness of the risks involved, in this same time period CPSC staff was aware of 97 reports of circulation entrapments, involving 12 fatalities and 82 injuries. Eleven of the fatalities involved children, ages 6 -17 years old, with the majority of them female. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of all the entrapments involved individuals under 18, with over half under 10 years of age. Forty-nine percent (49%) of the entrapments involved pools and 33 percent spas, with 37 percent confirmed to be in public settings as contrasted to residential or “unknown.” Sixty-eight percent (68%) were body or limb entrapments, with “trapped by suction” being the most common hazard scenario (33%). Five fatalities and 29 injuries were in public pools or spas. Investigation This report was compiled from data from numerous sources including: • Interview with a San Mateo County EHD management official • Interviews and follow up written communications with a San Mateo County Pool Program representative • Interview with a San Mateo County Inspector in the field during a pool inspection • Interview and follow-up written communications with a San Mateo County EHD administrative employee familiar with Pool Program accounting • Interviews with three major pool contractors operating in San Mateo County • Interview with a representative of the Northern California Recreational Health Technical Advisory Committee to the California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health (CCDEH) • Review of EHD’s pool inventory, Inspection Forms (IFs) and VGB correspondence • Review of San Mateo County’s Pool Program Inspection Policy and available training documentation • Review of San Mateo County EHD’s Pool Program Budget and Actual financial data 2007-08 to 2011-12 • Visits to twenty public pools or spas, some multiple times, to confirm operating status • Review of relevant Federal and California Health and Safety Code §§116064.2 and 116065 and related published interpretation guidance • Review of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code Title 5 §5.64070 – Collection of Fees 8“1999-2010 Reported Circulation/Suction Entrapments Associated with Pools, Spas, and Whirlpool Bathtubs”, 2011 Report, CPSC, May 2011. 4 • CPSC and Association of Pool and Spa Professionals websites • Responses to written requests for VGB-related compliance data from 5 Bay Area counties This investigation consisted of exploration of the following areas: • Overall Pool Program Practices and VGB Compliance Impacts - What is the frequency and nature of public pool inspections by EHD? Is there a governing policy and is EHD complying with it? How are violations documented by EHD and handled through resolution? How did the VGB Act and CHSC §116064.2 impact the Pool Program? The large majority of pool inspections, including year-round pools, occur between April and September because of the way EHD allocates its resources to support both food and pool inspections. There are fifteen food inspectors and only one full-time Pool Program Specialist. The food inspectors schedule their restaurant inspection work and other duties throughout the year to free up enough time to support the pool inspection program during the summer months. They are cross-trained for this purpose. This was designed to be an efficient use of available resources. The Grand Jury determined that there are approximately 1,044 public pools and spas in the County subject to inspection. According to EHD Policy, the minimum standards are that public swimming pools are inspected at least twice during each swim season, with the first routine inspection between April 1 and June 30 and the second routine inspection between July 1 and September 30.9 The EHD policy does not currently address year-round inspections even though some public pools operate daily all year long. The required frequency of inspection (twice per year) would have resulted in a minimum of six inspections between December 19, 2008 and September 30, 2011, all opportunities to evaluate VGB compliance status and note violations of it on Inspection Forms (IFs). Three of those would have been between July 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011 when CHSC §116064.2 was already effective. The Grand Jury reviewed copies of 116 IFs for 17 different pools and spas, spanning 2007 - 2011. In general, EHD complies with its required minimum routine pool inspection frequency. Some inspections of year-round pools are made at other times of the year, although this is not required by policy. These are performed with the limited dedicated Pool Program resources, primarily the Pool Program Specialist. Typical violations, such as water chemistry, signage, safety and security violations are routinely documented on IFs, and there appeared to be consistent follow-up within short periods of time to visually confirm required corrections were made. VGB status documentation on IFs, however, was inconsistent by inspector, time period, and description. The absence of any specific VGB-related status checkbox on the IF likely contributed to this. EHD Policy “Food 2010-05, dated July 16, 2010, Subject: Inspection Frequency” (Food and pool inspection frequencies are established in the same document) 5 The impact of VGB issues fell primarily on the Pool Program Specialist who personally tracked status, reviewed plans, and worked with owner/operators to achieve compliance. The impact to individual inspectors was less, and varied depending on the number and VGB status of the pools assigned to them. It is important to note that CHSC §116064.2 allows Counties to accept written documentation of compliance with its provisions. Certification by an appropriate licensed contractor on a California Department of Public Health Compliance Form developed for this purpose is sufficient. However, San Mateo County EHD chose not to consider pools and spas VGB compliant until verified by physical inspection. • Communications with owners of requirements under CHSC §116064.2 – What were the type and frequency of communications to let owners know the technical requirements and timing of the VGB Act and CHSC §116064.2 requirements, as well as implications of failure to meet them? As noted in the Background section above, three letters were sent by EHD to affected pool and spa owners: 1) The Advisory Notice of December 30, 2008 informing owners and operators of the December 19, 2008 effective date of the VGB Act and EHD’s inability to enforce its provisions; 2) The January 15, 2010 letter to non-VGB compliant owners notifying them that as of January 1, 2010 local authorities are mandated to enforce California VGB provisions and that July 1, 2010 was the final compliance date in California. (“If your pools are not in compliance by this date, you will be required to close your pool(s) to the public until they meet all of the new law’s requirements.”) (emphasis in original); 3) The “Notice to Close – Pool /Spa” letters of June 21, 2010 (See Attachment 3 for sample) to owners who had not yet complied with California’s VGB law (CHSC §116064.2) according to EHD records, notifying them of their obligation to close their pools as of July 1, 2010 if not VGB compliant. There were no other general letters or communications to all non-compliant owners related to VGB compliance status between July 1, 2010 and August 2011.10 The Grand Jury made specific requests for any written correspondence aimed at achieving VGB compliance between EHD and individual non-compliant pool owners. Only one such letter, dated August 10, 2010, to a single pool owner was provided. It addressed multiple pool violations, including VGB non-compliance, and gave the owner 30 days to “submit plans to eliminate all entrapment hazards.” The only subsequent IF provided for this location was dated June 3, 2011, and noted “Pool closed due to non-compliance with Virginia Graeme Baker (VGB)/anti-entrapment requirements.” A Pool Program representative stated that formal documentation of telephone contacts is not maintained. This representative explained 10 An informational letter was being prepared by EHD in August 2011 for pool owners/operators impacted by a May 2011 CPSC-announced manufacturers’ drain cover recall that had the effect of rendering previously VGB compliant pools and spas as non-compliant. 6 that the other communications addressing VGB compliance status would have been through the IFs, copies of which are provided to owners or pool managers designated to handle such matters, or through permit applications. (See below for discussion of specific IF reviews.) • EHD Pool Program Systems, Training and Documentation - What is the capability of the EHD to accurately determine and track status of owner actions toward VGB compliance? What kinds of reports are available from the system(s) used? Are Inspection Reports readily available and properly completed by adequately trained inspectors to reflect pool conditions and VGB status? The Grand Jury determined that the EHD uses its Envision database to maintain pool inventories, track inspections, record results, capture time for budget and other business purposes, and invoice “beyond the norm” re-inspections. EHD personnel provided the Grand Jury with a variety of reports out of the system, some on their own to satisfy general requests, such as pool inventory by name and address with last Activity Dates (inspection dates) and VGB status, and others in response to specific Grand Jury requests. EHD personnel were able to extract the requested reports and data from Envision in a timely fashion. The Envision system has a field that represents VGB status, where “5” represents compliance and “blank” non-compliance. IFs, however, do not have a specific field for entering VGB status, resulting in inconsistent or missing notations. This is an issue, given that as many as 15 inspectors may be supporting the program seasonally. As an example, inspection records from seven pools had IF entries making an explicit comment related to non-VGB compliance and the need to comply, yet one or more subsequent inspections of those same pools made routine comments without mention of the outstanding VGB issue. Another example of IF inconsistencies is that the IF and EHD Policy 2009-01 require entry of a result code (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Closed) for each inspection. Two different interviewed personnel independently confirmed that this evaluation is subjective and that the same conditions or violations may result in different ratings by different inspectors. Generally, the Pool Program Specialist, rather than the Inspectors, updates the VGB status in Envision, which helps ensure its accuracy in the system despite IF reporting inconsistencies. The Pool Program Specialist periodically provides pool inspection training, which included VGB-specific training, to all inspectors performing pool inspections. The Grand Jury reviewed the documentation provided that showed participants’ names and dates of “Team Meeting” training sessions, but no documentation was provided or readily available to show the specific content of training provided in those sessions. • Financial Implications of VGB – What is the cost to the County of the Pool Program and how did VGB activities affect budgets and actuals? Does the County have the ability to segregate and track pool program costs separately and accurately from other EHD activities and functions? What was the cost to public pool owners to comply with the VGB Act and CHSC §116064.2? 7 The Grand Jury determined that the Pool Program gets no funding from the San Mateo County General Fund. It is expected to be self-sustaining from fees charged. Fees consist of annual inspection fees that cover the standard inspection program and one-time fees that cover plan reviews, remodel inspections, and “beyond the norm” re-inspections. That fee structure was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 27, 2007 and prescribed escalating fees for calendar years 2008-2011. A VGB surcharge of $6 was provided for in CHSC §116064.2 to help cover related state’s costs. The County is allowed to keep up to $1 to cover its administrative costs of collecting and remitting the surcharge to the state. It is not intended to offset local costs of this mandated, but unfunded, new law. With respect to “beyond the norm” re-inspection fees, imposition of such is left to the discretion of individual inspectors, based on the history of the pool, the number of times it takes to get resolution of an issue, etc. There is no written guidance to support these decisions. When imposed, the charge is based on the standard hourly rate for the inspector’s time (approximately $150/hr.). Fifty-four reinspections were billed in 2010 -11. EHD does a satisfactory job of collecting these fees, based on a review of outstanding balances. Total revenues collected from all sources have not consistently covered the expenses of the Pool Program during the VGB compliance period. Costs of the Pool Program primarily consist of salaries and benefits of two people, the full time Pool Program Specialist and the salary of one individual inspector who represents the total allocations of 15 division inspectors’ time to the pool program. This approach is taken to simplify budgeting and reporting. The shortfall, after overhead application, was $45,263, $54,194, and $85,862 for the last three fiscal years. The overall EHD budget absorbed this shortfall. This budget variance was attributed to: (1) the extra VGB compliance related work (the full time Pool Program Specialist reported spending the significant majority of his time on VGB issues for the past two years); and (2) a more diligent and accurate data capture initiative. Historically, not all pool program time incurred was reported, resulting in fee structures and budgets that understated the program’s true costs. An initiative to improve reporting accuracy is resulting in better data that should translate into more accurate future fee structures and budgets. The effect of the VGB program on pool owners was also investigated. An EHD Pool Program representative had estimated the typical cost of compliance to be $1,500 - $2,500 and added that owners often do additional work unrelated to VGB compliance at the same time mandated drain work is being done, increasing the overall cost. An independent pool contractor reported costs for grates to be in the $400-$500 range, and splitting drains in the $2,000-$2,500 range, consistent with the EHD estimate. • VGB Enforcement Diligence - How many pools were non-compliant with CHSC §116064.2 at the time of its final compliance date of July 1, 2010 and at the conclusion of this investigation on September 30, 2011? On what basis and whose authority determined the approach taken with respect to enforcement? How aggressively or not did EHD deal with non-compliant owners? Were there any significant obstacles to compliance for owners? 8 As noted in Background above, a letter was sent to approximately 800 non-VGB compliant pool and spa owners on January 15, 2010. The Grand Jury attempted to determine the number of pools that were non-compliant on July 1, 2010, the legally mandated effective date of the regulation in California. An answer was not readily available, although an EHD representative said that it could be determined with considerable effort.11 EHD did provide copies of previously run reports of non-VGB compliance spanning the period of interest, with results as follows. Table 1 - # Active Non-VGB Compliant Pools by Date12 Date Number of Non -VGB Compliant Active Pools Jan 15, 2010 800 (est. based on “80% non-compliant”) Aug 18, 2010 448 Nov 19, 2010 262 (includes unspecified # inactive) Jan 7, 2011 201 Mar 11, 2011 127 May 9,2011 82 Jul 7, 2011 47 Aug 26, 2011 8 Sep 9, 2011 9 (5 of the 8 above plus 4 special situations13) Sep 30, 2011 3 (all special situations) As mentioned previously, pools and spas were not considered VGB compliant until a confirmatory physical inspection was performed, even if the State Compliance Form had been submitted to EHD with appropriate certification. As a result, the numbers in the table are maximums. A Pool Program representative acknowledged that action was not taken to promptly close all non-VGB compliant pools on CHSC 116064’s final compliance date of July 1, 2010. Reasons provided included the following: (cid:1) There were difficulties with backlogs of pool contractors and parts availability due to the compliance deadline. Contractors were coming in from “the valley” to do the work. (cid:1) There was not a great safety risk. There had never been a reported entrapment- related drowning or injury in San Mateo County. Priority attention was given to wading pools and spas (with flat drain grates and single main drain systems) where the risk of entrapment was greater than in deep pools where small children were unlikely to be in the proximity of drains. The Grand Jury decided that the reports and data already available (reflected in Table 1) were sufficient to establish the rate of progress in achieving VGB compliance and therefore did not request additional work by EHD to establish the July 1, 2010 starting number. There were 1,044 total public pools and spas at the start of the investigation, but the total varied over time as new public pools or spas were added or others closed. Hence, absolute numbers are reported rather than percentages. 13 “Special situations” refers to complicating factors such as custom engineering requirements or difficulties assessing compliance of work completed. 9 (cid:1) A “grace period” through the end of the current swimming season would provide owners with an opportunity to get the work done in the offseason. (cid:1) The Bay Area Swimming Pool Information Sharing Committee, a professional group of Northern California County representatives responsible for their respective pool programs, had discussed this in meetings and, based on those discussions, counties were generally in agreement that they should work with the owners to make the required changes in a reasonable time frame but not immediately move to shut down non-compliant pools.14 The Grand Jury attempted to verify each of those reasons independently. (cid:1) Three major local pool contractors interviewed said there were minor, short-term issues around the final compliance date of the regulation, but in their view, neither parts nor labor issues impacted the ability of pool owners to meet legal requirements. (cid:1) Based on the CPSC national incidence rate of drownings and injuries due to entrapment reported in Background, the risk was low. The local prioritization of wading pools and spas was appropriate, based on CPSC guidance 15 (cid:1) An interview with a representative of the Northern California Recreational Health Technical Advisory Committee (and review of minutes of a meeting held before and one after the July 1, 2010 effective date) showed the Committee discussed technical aspects of compliance but made no recommendations to its members or to the CCDEH with respect to enforcement approaches, a decision that was left to the Counties.16 A Pool Program representative interviewed confirmed that San Mateo County’s enforcement approach (i.e., to work with owners to achieve compliance and not take prompt enforcement action) was handled at the operations level and was not escalated to the EHD Director as a formal recommendation for a decision. (cid:1) Additionally, the Grand Jury requested a limited amount of data from five surrounding counties to evaluate, at a high level, relative VGB enforcement results. Based on the five responses, only one county achieved full compliance by the July 1, 2010 effective date, one other achieved it by September 30, 2011, and one other expects to be complete by December 2011. San Mateo County appears to be in the upper middle of the range in terms of VGB compliance results achieved to date. (See Attachment #4 for Summary). One major pool contractor who works across county lines was asked for his evaluation of the capability and performance of the San Mateo County EHD Pool Program management of this issue relative to others and he responded positively about San Mateo County’s overall VGB program management. It was subsequently learned from a representative of that organization that this is not its official name. It is properly named the Northern California Recreational Health Technical Advisory Committee (to the California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health). Pool and Spa Safety Act FAQs http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/vgb/poolspafaq.pdf 1/30/2009) 16 The California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health is an Association of EDH Directors from 62 jurisdictions representing all 58 counties and four cities. It is affiliated with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC). On September 9, 2011, an EHD representative reported two pools previously operating were closed for non-VGB compliance. Documentation to show dates of closure of these pools could not be provided by EHD when requested. Grand Jury members found these pools to be open when visited by them on September 15, 2011. Both pools had one or more children swimming in them at the time. EHD provided a written status update to the Grand Jury on September 30, 2011, stating that owners of one of these pools completed modifications intended to achieve VGB compliance, but there is some question regarding whether the changes fully comply, as EHD has no record of a remodel permit, did not witness the work, and has not received the state Compliance Form. Requests have been made by EHD for contractor documentation, and the outcome will dictate next steps. It was reported that visually, the pool is VGB compliant and is being allowed to operate in the interim. The second pool, also reported on September 30, 2011 as closed, was confirmed to be closed by a Grand Jury member visit on September 29, 2011. Gates were locked and the sign posted was signed by EHD on September 23, 2011. Two Pool Program representatives independently told the Grand Jury that occasionally EHD discovers that a pool it has closed has had locks and signage removed, either by the owner/operator or by tenants who want to use the pool anyway. In such cases, EHD will reclose the pool and resolve the issue with the owner. The Grand Jury was not able to establish what happened in the two cases cited. In addition to the pool that appears visually VGB compliant, but is pending a documentation review to confirm, two non-VGB compliant pools were still open on September 30, 2011 at the conclusion of this investigation. Both had special circumstances associated with them: 1. The Four Seasons Hotel at 2050 University in East Palo Alto (one pool and one spa) - Units have a unique design that requires custom fabrication of parts to achieve compliance. EHD has determined by inspection that there is no safety risk so the pool is being allowed to operate pending resolution.