San Mateo County Grand Jury
2015-2016
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 (13)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Atherton, Belmont, Foster City, Hillsborough, and Menlo Park Police Departments have deployed body-worn camera systems. Response: The City agrees with this finding .
F2:
The Sheriff's Office and five of the city police departments that have not deployed body-worn cameras all expressed similarconcerns regarding theimplementation ofthese systems, thecostof equipment,thecostof data retention, and policydevelopment. Response: The City agreeswith this finding,relying on theGrand Jury'srepresentations intheirreport.
F3:
The Atherton, Belmont, Foster City, Hillsborough, and Menlo Park Police Departments have budgeted sufficient fundstomanagethecostof equipment, data retention,and training. Response: The City agrees with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury's representations intheir report.
F4:
The Atherton, Belmont, Foster City, Hillsborough, and Menlo Park Police Departments have developed written policies regarding the operation and data retention of body-worn camera systems as well as the protection of therightsofthe community and policeofficers. Hillsborough isinthe process ofdeveloping asimilar policy. The Honorable Joseph C. Scott July 5,2016 Response: The City agrees with thisfinding.
F5:
Many local lawenforcement agencies thatcurrently donot employ body-worn cameras acknowledge thatthese systems arebeneficial and willlikelybe implemented inthefutureeithervoluntarily orby mandate. Response: The City agrees with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury's representations in their report. Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the councils of those cities/towns that have not adopted body-worn cameras direct their respective chiefs of police to develop an appropriate body-worn camera implementation plan and advise the public of their plan by November 30,2016. Response: This recommendation requiresfurther analysisofthecosts and benefitsofimplementation,the appropriate technology to use that integrates with the Police Department's current records management system, and competing priorities in the Police Department. This analysis will be completed by November 1, 2016, and presented to the City Council for discussion by November 30,2016.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office develops a plan to implement body-worn cameras and advise the public of this plan by November 30,2016. Response: The City of San Bruno has no response to this recommendation.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the police departments of those cities, towns, and the Broadmoor Police Protection Districtthat have not adopted body-worn cameras implement a body-worn camera system as soon aspracticable but, inany event,nolaterthan October31,2017. Response: As described above, the use of body-worn cameras requires further analysis. Should the City choose to move forward, then staff will request that the City Council include sufficient funding in the FY 17-18 budget so that the cameras can be implemented byOctober 31,2017. SThe BiunrlingarmLe City Coulncil approved this res 0 iletteratitsmeeting on July5. 2016. Ann Keighran Mayor c: Burlingame City Council Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular Cityupdatesat www.Burlingame.org MAYOR CITY OF PACIFICA Sue Digre 170 Santa Maria Avenue - Pacifica, California 94044-2506 MAYORPROTEM www.cityofpacifica.org Mike O' Neill COUNCIL Karen Ervin Mary Ann Nihart Scenic Pacifica John Keener Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957 August 8, 2016 Hon. Joseph C.Scott Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Re: City of Pacifica Response to Grand Jury Report dated May 24, 2016, entitled "Body Cameras-The Reel Truth" Dear Hon. Joseph C. Scott: On behalf of the City of Pacifica, this letter serves as the City's response to the report named above, and was approved by the City Council at its August 8,2016 meeting. Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05, the City is responding to each finding and to each recommendation individually.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office implement a body-worn camera system as soon as practicable but, in any event, no later than October 31, 2017. /' Response: The City of San Bruno has no response to this recommendation. This response letter was approved by the San Bruno City Council at its regularly scheduled public meeting on July 12, 2016. Sincerely,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F2:
The Sheriff's Office and five of the city police departments that have not deployed body worn cameras all expressed similar concerns regarding the implementation of these systems, the cost ofequipment, the cost of data retention, and policy development. Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. While we agree that equipment and data related costs and policy development are areas of concern, we also wish to acknowledge that there are unsettled legal issues regarding the use and release of the data and how the daily practices of the San Mateo Police Department would be affected.
F3:
The Atherton, Belmont, Foster City, Hillsborough, and Menlo Park Police Departments have budgeted sufficient funds to manage the cost of equipment, data retention, and training . Respondent disagrees partially with this finding. The ongoing process of budgeting for a comprehensive Body Worn Video (BWV) solution that encompasses equipment, data management, policy & training, and additional labor costs related to relaying the digital evidence and records through prosecution & litigation requests and Public Records Act requests is yet to be fully developed, and requires additional study beyond the implementation period.
F4:
The Atherton, Belmont, Foster City, and Menlo Park Police Departments have developed written policies regarding the operation and data retention of body-worn camera systems as well as the protection of the rights of the community and police officers. Hillsborough is in the process of developing a similar policy. Respondent agrees with this factual statement. Respondent notes, however, that although most policies have similarities and consistencies, Body Worn Video policies are unique to each agency. That necessary uniqueness creates a landscape of equipment and data usage, data retention, and video production which will result in (sometimes great) variations in overall costs for implementation and maintenance from one agency to the next. FS Many local law enforcement agencies that currently do not employ body-worn cameras acknowledge that these systems are beneficial and will likely be implemented in the future either voluntarily or by mandate. Respondent agrees with this factual statement. Response to Grand Jury Recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the councils of those cities/towns that have not adopted body-worn cameras direct their respective chiefs of police to develop an appropriate body-worn camera implementation plan and advise the public of their plan by November 30,2016. The recommendation has been implemented. The respondent, after hearing a staff report from the San Mateo Police Department, has directed the City of San Mateo Police Chief to develop an implementation plan no later than November 30, 2016.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriff develop a plan to implement body-worn cameras and advise the public of his plan by November 30, 2016. This Recommendation is not applicable to this respondent.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the police departments ofthose cities, towns,and the Broadmoor Police Protection District that have not adopted body-worn cameras implement a body-worn camera system as soon as practicable but, in any event, no later than October 31, 2017. This recommendation will be implemented in the future, with a time frame as follows: Respondent has recommended complete implementation of body worn video technology with a targeted implementation date of November 2017, providing all policy, practice, and equipment related matters have been satisfied.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriffs Office implement a body-worn camera system as soon as practicable but, in any event, no later than October 31, 2017. This Recommendation is not applicable to this respondent. This response to the Grand Jury was approved at a public meeting on August 15,2016. The City ofSan Mateo continues to support the ongoing work ofour San Mateo Police Department to be leaders in the area of transparency, legitimacy, and community engagement. We see Body Worn Video as a key component of our Police Department's continued leadership in these important areas, and applaud the County's endeavor to support our local law enforcement agencies' leadership in that regard. Respectfully, j-;: G~-Lscv (J Mayor - City of San Mateo
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
18
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the councils of those cities/towns that have not adopted body-worn cameras direct their respective chiefs of police to develop an appropriate body-worn camera implementation plan and advise the public of their plan by November 30, 2016.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriff develop a plan to implement body-worn cameras and advise the public of his plan by November 30, 2016.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the police departments of those cities, towns, and the Broadmoor Police Protection District that have not adopted body-worn cameras implement a body-worn camera system as soon as practicable but, in any event, no later than October 31, 2017.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office implement a body-worn camera system as soon as practicable but, in any event, no later than October 31, 2017. FOLLOW UP APPLICABLE RESPONDING AGENCY RESPONSE
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Bayshore Sanitary District and the City Councils of Brisbane and Daly City do the following:
Improve information visibility on their website, including key system characteristics, rates and rate history, sewer system management plans, sanitary sewer overflows, and board member compensation. Key system characteristics would include population served, number of connections, number of miles of pipe (gravity, forced main), number of pump stations and number of pumps, average dry weather flow, and average wet weather flow. Ensure all information is up to date. Refresh website by September 30, 2016.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Bayshore Sanitary District and the City Councils of Brisbane and Daly City do the following:
Implement and publish performance management metrics including but not limited to the Effective Utility Management framework, beginning with Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Bayshore Sanitary District and the City Councils of Brisbane and Daly City do the following:
Adjust rates over the next five years so that all costs are recovered from ratepayers, and the reliance on property tax is eliminated. Transition property tax revenues to neighboring cities to be used for community benefit.
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Bayshore Sanitary District and the City Councils of Brisbane and Daly City do the following:
Mail notices to ratepayers at least annually with an explanation of the dollar amount of sewer service charges being billed and the rationale. Provide information on the prior five years’ rates for comparison purposes. Display the portion of the rate that is related to collection activities, and the portion allocated to treatment. Mail notices approximately 30 days before the mailing of the property tax bills. Initiate mailings by November 2016. San Mateo County’s Cottage Industry Of Sanitary Districts, continued
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Bayshore Sanitary District and the City Councils of Brisbane and Daly City do the following:
Notify ratepayers annually of elected nature of Board, role and compensation of Board members, and process for becoming a candidate. Encourage active participation by ratepayers. This notification may be included in the mailing that explains the rationale for rates. Initiate notification by November 2016.
R10:
Establish term limits for the members of their boards of directors by June 30, 2017.
R11:
Establish a procurement process for professional services to include formal evaluation of existing service providers, issuance of Request for Proposals, regular reviews of existing providers, and a structured negotiation process by March 31, 2017.
R12:
Demonstrate active participation in professional organizations focused on the work of sanitary districts, such as California Water Environment Association, by June 30, 2017. Require CWEA certification of district operators, including contractors, by June 30, 2017.
R13:
Develop plans for coordinating resources in the event of a local or regional emergency by June 30, 2017. The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of Bayshore Sanitary District, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, West Bay Sanitary District, and Westborough Water District do the following:
R14:
Evaluate the benefit of changing the timing of board director elections to November of even years, when federal and state elections generate greater turnout. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District do the following:
R15:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District do the following:
Develop, publish, and track separate budgets for sewer and water services, beginning with Fiscal Year 2016-2017. The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of the Bayshore Sanitary District, Montara Water and Sanitary District, and Westborough Water District do the following:
R16:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District do the following:
Explore the feasibility of establishing a flat rate for capital improvements separate from the water usage rate. Report back at a public meeting by December 31, 2016. The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of the Bayshore Sanitary District and East Palo Alto Sanitary District do the following:
R17:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of the Bayshore Sanitary District and East Palo Alto Sanitary District do the following:
Reduce the daily compensation of board directors to $100 per day by December 31, 2017. Phase out all benefits for board directors over a period of time not to exceed three years. The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission do the following:
R18:
The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission do the following:
Initiate a service review of the Westborough Water District to examine whether its operations might be more efficiently and effectively run if they were consolidated with another entity’s operations. FOLLOW UP APPLICABLE RESPONDING AGENCY RESPONSE
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
In FY 2014-2015, San Mateo County spent $64.6 million, or about $75,000 per inmate, to run the Men’s and Women’s Jails. About 67% of inmates were unsentenced, and 53% of these unsentenced inmates were eligible for bail but remained in jail because they could not afford bail. The incarceration of unsentenced inmates was a considerable cost to County taxpayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors should direct the Probation Department Pretrial Services to evaluate and recommend various alternatives to pretrial incarceration, including but not limited to evidence-based risk-assessment tools and electronic monitoring. • The Probation Department should present its evaluation and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors by June 30, 2017. • As part of the evaluation and recommendation process, the Probation Department should receive input from members of the San Mateo County Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), as well as from criminal trial judges.
F2:
Jail is highly disruptive to inmates and their families.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Controller’s Office should provide an annual analysis beginning in FY 2016-2017 of the total costs to run the County’s jails including estimates of how costs will vary with changes in the jail population. The first annual report should be completed and presented at a public meeting to the Board of Supervisors by September 1, 2017. Ibid.
F3:
Incarcerating people solely because they cannot afford bail is inconsistent with the fundamental principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Observing constitutional rights to reasonable bail and due process that apply to those arrested but not yet convicted, and
F4:
Pretrial tools such as evidence-based risk-assessment tools and electronic monitoring have been deployed by counties in California and have the potential to reduce jail populations, mitigate community risk, improve court appearance, and save taxpayers money.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Controlling jail costs, which is the largest expense in many county budgets Impact of Detention on Unsentenced Defendants Pretrial, or unsentenced, defendants6 are people who have been accused of a crime and remain in jail prior to their trial “either because of a failure to post bail or due to denial of release under a pretrial detention statute.”7 4 Sonya Tafoya, "Assessing the Impact of Bail on California’s Jail Population" (San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California, June 2013). http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_613STR.pdf 5 Marc Levin, "Pre-Trial Justice 101: Key Points for Policymakers" (Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2016). http://rightoncrime.com/2015/03/levin-new-report-on-pretrial-justice/ 6 In this report the term unsentenced rather than pretrial is used because the County and the State use it in their jail statistics. The two terms are not completely identical. The term unsentenced includes individuals who have been convicted at trial and are awaiting sentencing as well as those awaiting trial. The term pretrial excludes those awaiting sentencing. USLegal, "Pre Trial Detention Law & Legal Definition," USLegal, Inc. http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pre-trial- detention/ Unsentenced defendants may suffer in many ways.8 They may lose income; many lose jobs and/or housing; and, their families are impacted financially and socially.9 Unsentenced defendants in jail are more likely to take plea deals than those who have been released on their own recognizance or made bail.10 Finally, studies show that people who are in jail before their trial and who go to trial are more likely to be convicted and receive longer sentences.11 The concern about the disproportionate impact of bail on the poor is not a new one. In 1964 at the first National Symposium on Pretrial Justice, Attorney General Robert Kennedy said: Every year in this country, thousands of persons are kept in jail for weeks and even months following arrest. They are not yet proven guilty. They may be no more likely to flee than you or I. But, nonetheless, most of them must stay in jail because, to be blunt, they cannot afford to pay for their freedom . . . [the] problem, simply stated is: the rich man and the poor man do not receive equal justice in our courts. And in no area is this more evident than in the matter of bail.12 Impact of Bailed Defendants on Community Safety The California Penal Code requires that “the public safety shall be the primary consideration,”13 in setting bail. In California, within a two-year period, suspects who had been released on bail committed more than 20,000 crimes, including robberies, murders, and rapes.14 “The most common crimes that were committed were criminal damages and assault on police officers. That number of crimes equates to well over 30 individual offenses each day. . . . One quarter of all crimes that were committed in 2007 were committed by individuals who were out on bail.”15 Cost of Incarcerating Unsentenced Defendants Taxpayers are also burdened. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that at mid-year 2014, there were 745,000 inmates in county and local jails across the United States. Sixty-two percent of them were unconvicted.16 The Bureau notes, “Since 2000, 95% of the growth in the 8 Nick Pinto, "The Bail Trap," New York Times Magazine, August 13, 2015. http://nyti.ms/1IJKXjS 9 Shima Baradaran Baughman, "Costs of Pretrial Detention," Boston University Law Review (2017, Forthcoming). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2757251 10 Mary E. Buser, "How Rikers Drove My Innocent Patient to Plead Guilty," Politico Magazine, October 6, 2015. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/rikers-island-plea-bargains-213223 11 Timothy R. Schnacke, "Fundamentals of Bail: A Resource Guide for Pretrial Practitioners and a Framework for American Pretrial Reform" (2014). http://nicic.gov/Library/files/028360.pdf 12 Robert F. Kennedy, "Testimony by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy on Bail Legislation," Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights and Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate (Washington DC: Department of Justice Library, August 4, 1964). https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/01/20/08-04-1964.pdf 13 California Penal Code §1270, cl. (a) 14 Remedy Bail Bonds, 2012. http://remedybail.com/blog/crimes-committed-while-on-bail. http://remedybail.com/blog/crimes-committed-while-on-bail 15 Ibid. Todd D. Minton and Zhen Zeng, "Jail Inmates at Midyear 2014" (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2015). http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5299 overall jail inmate population (123,500) was due to the increase in the unconvicted population (117,700 inmates).”17 The cost to the country of detaining unconvicted individuals in county jails exceeds $9 billion annually.18 In FY 2014-2015, San Mateo County spent $64.6 million to run the Men’s and Women’s Jails. This came to approximately $75,000 per year per inmate (see
F5:
According to interviews with senior Probation Department staff, the department’s Pretrial Services recommendations are typically followed only 30% of the time.
F6:
The County’s budgeting and reporting systems make it difficult to estimate what changes in inmate population will cost.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
From 2013-2015, San Mateo County sewer agencies had more than twice as many sanitary sewer overflows as San Jose and three times as many as Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.
F2:
Independent district websites have gaps in information regarding historical rates, sewer system management plans, and sanitary sewer overflows. Meeting minutes and financial audits are frequently out of date.
F3:
The use of the annual property tax statement for billing purposes makes the cost of sewer services less visible to residents.
F4:
Elections for sanitary district board membership are rarely contested, and when they are, voter turnout is low. The average tenure of board members is over 10 years.
F5:
Five of the six districts receive countywide property taxes, which means that residents’ fees are not paying the full cost of sewer services.
F6:
Sewer rates from 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 increased faster than the consumer price index. The six districts acknowledged that this trend is likely to continue given the age of pipelines in the County and the cost of maintenance to and replacement of those pipelines.
F7:
Funds for treatment plants pass from ratepayers through the independent sanitary districts to the treatment plants; the sanitary districts add little value.
F8:
The total budget for operating the boards of the six districts studied is over $225,000. East Palo Alto’s average annual compensation for directors is $18,000, 66% higher than the 60 San Francisco Water Power Sewer, SSIP Goals & Level of Service. http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=668. Ibid. City of San Jose, Sewer System Management Plan, Document No. 1131790, October 2014, p. 8. See Appendix L: References to “Disaster” or “Emergency” in Board Meeting Minutes. next highest (and much larger) district, West Bay. Bayshore and East Palo Alto offer employee-type benefits to directors including dental insurance.
F9:
The pipelines of the six districts are aging, with almost half having been laid over 50 years ago. These pipes are approaching end of life.
F10:
There are many wholly or partially redundant activities across the six independent districts, including board costs, financial audits, legal services, and engineering.
F11:
Most of the independent sanitary districts rely almost entirely on contractors to fulfill their responsibilities.
F12:
In many cases, district leadership is unfamiliar with the existing and emerging technologies for improving sewer system performance while reducing costs.
F13:
The proliferation of sanitary districts within San Mateo County makes it challenging to coordinate an emergency response. The districts themselves have not reviewed or discussed emergency/disaster planning within their boards in the past year.
Additional Recommendations
18
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Form a committee of Board members (Bayshore Sanitary District), Council members (Brisbane, Daly City), and staff from each to discuss the assumption of services provided by Bayshore Sanitary District into Brisbane and/or Daly City. Evaluate alternatives and determine the benefits to ratepayers. Issue a report with recommendations and a plan by September 30, 2017. The Grand Jury recommends that Boards of the East Palo Alto Sanitary District and West Bay Sanitary District and the City Council of East Palo Alto do the following:
R2:
Form a committee of Board members (East Palo Alto Sanitary District, West Bay Sanitary District), Council members (East Palo Alto), and staff from each to discuss the assumption of services provided by East Palo Alto Sanitary District into either West Bay Sanitary District or the City of East Palo Alto. Evaluate alternatives and determine the benefits to ratepayers. Issue a report with recommendations and a plan by September 30, 2017. The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of Granada Community Services District and Montara Water and Sanitary District and the City Council of Half Moon Bay do the following:
R3:
Form a committee of Board members (Granada Community Services District, Montara Water and Sanitary District), Council members (Half Moon Bay), and staff from each to plan the consolidation or assumption of services provided by these two districts. Evaluate alternatives and determine the benefits to ratepayers. Issue a report with recommendations and a plan by September 30, 2017. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District and the City Councils of Daly City and South San Francisco do the following:
R4:
Form a committee of Board members (Westborough Water District), Council members (Daly City, South San Francisco), and staff from each to discuss the assumption of services provided by Westborough Water District into Daly City and/or South San Francisco. Evaluate alternatives and determine the benefits to ratepayers. Issue a report with recommendations and a plan by September 30, 2017. Work with California Water Service Company on this initiative. The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of Bayshore Sanitary District, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Granada Community Services District, Montara Water & Sanitary District, West Bay Sanitary District, and Westborough Water District do the following:
R5:
Improve information visibility on their website, including key system characteristics, rates and rate history, sewer system management plans, sanitary sewer overflows, and board member compensation. Key system characteristics would include population served, number of connections, number of miles of pipe (gravity, forced main), number of pump stations and number of pumps, average dry weather flow, and average wet weather flow. Ensure all information is up to date. Refresh website by September 30, 2016.
R6:
Implement and publish performance management metrics including but not limited to the Effective Utility Management framework, beginning with Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
R7:
Adjust rates over the next five years so that all costs are recovered from ratepayers, and the reliance on property tax is eliminated. Transition property tax revenues to neighboring cities to be used for community benefit.
R8:
Mail notices to ratepayers at least annually with an explanation of the dollar amount of sewer service charges being billed and the rationale. Provide information on the prior five years’ rates for comparison purposes. Display the portion of the rate that is related to collection activities, and the portion allocated to treatment. Mail notices approximately 30 days before the mailing of the property tax bills. Initiate mailings by November 2016.
R9:
Notify ratepayers annually of elected nature of Board, role and compensation of Board members, and process for becoming a candidate. Encourage active participation by ratepayers. This notification may be included in the mailing that explains the rationale for rates. Initiate notification by November 2016.
R10:
Establish term limits for the members of their boards of directors by June 30, 2017.
R11:
Establish a procurement process for professional services to include formal evaluation of existing service providers, issuance of Request for Proposals, regular reviews of existing providers, and a structured negotiation process by March 31, 2017.
R12:
Demonstrate active participation in professional organizations focused on the work of sanitary districts, such as California Water Environment Association, by June 30, 2017. Require CWEA certification of district operators, including contractors, by June 30, 2017.
R13:
Develop plans for coordinating resources in the event of a local or regional emergency by June 30, 2017. The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of Bayshore Sanitary District, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, West Bay Sanitary District, and Westborough Water District do the following:
R14:
Evaluate the benefit of changing the timing of board director elections to November of even years, when federal and state elections generate greater turnout.64 The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District do the following:
R15:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District do the following:
Develop, publish, and track separate budgets for sewer and water services, beginning with Fiscal Year 2016-2017. The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of the Bayshore Sanitary District, Montara Water and Sanitary District, and Westborough Water District do the following:
R16:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District do the following:
Explore the feasibility of establishing a flat rate for capital improvements separate from the water usage rate. Report back at a public meeting by December 31, 2016. The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of the Bayshore Sanitary District and East Palo Alto Sanitary District do the following:
R17:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District do the following:
Reduce the daily compensation of board directors to $100 per day by December 31, 2017. Phase out all benefits for board directors over a period of time not to exceed three years. The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission do the following:
R18:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District do the following:
Initiate a service review of the Westborough Water District to examine whether its operations might be more efficiently and effectively run if they were consolidated with another entity’s operations.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
From 2013‐2015, San Mateo County sewer agencies had more than twice as many sanitary sewer overflows as San Jose and three times as many as Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Response: LAFCo lacks information or knowledge to respond to this finding as it is directed at knowledge and information in the possession of the sanitary districts. Subject to the foregoing, LAFCo will not provide a response.
F2:
Independent district websites have gaps in information regarding historical rates, sewer system management plans, and sanitary sewer overflows. Meeting minutes and financial audits are frequently out of date. Response: LAFCo lacks information or knowledge to respond to this finding as it is directed at knowledge and information in the possession of the sanitary districts. Subject to the foregoing, LAFCo will not provide a response.
F3:
The use of the annual property tax statement for billing purposes makes the cost of sewer services less visible to residents. Response: LAFCo partially agrees in that resident owners receive their property tax bills and are aware of the sewer services charges. However, non‐owner occupants may not receive information about the sewer service charges that are passed onto non‐owner occupants.
F4:
Elections for sanitary district board membership are rarely contested and when they are, voter turnout is low. The average tenure of board members is over 10 years. Response: LAFCo lacks information or knowledge to respond to this finding as it is directed at knowledge and information in the possession of the sanitary districts. Subject to the foregoing, LAFCo will not provide a response.
F5:
Five of the six districts receive countywide property taxes, which means that residents’ fees are not paying the full cost of sewer services. Response: LAFCo agrees that sewer service fees are not recovering the full cost of sewer service because the districts offset operating costs with property tax. In regard to 1 In the cases of Daly City, Brisbane and Foster City, a city governed subsidiary district is the legal entity providing sewer service. Recommended Response to the 2015‐2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report September 14, 2016 property tax received by the districts, LAFCo offers clarification that the majority of the “countywide taxes”mentioned in the Grand Jury’s statement (taxes on the secured, unsecured, and homeowner’s exemption tax rolls) are calculated based on proportional shares of total property taxes in the County following the implementation of Proposition 13. These amounts are then adjusted annually for the incremental growth of property taxes within each district’s boundaries.
F6:
Sewer rates from 2010‐2011 to 2015‐2016 increased faster than the consumer price index. The six districts acknowledged that this trend is likely to continue given the age of pipelines in the County and the cost of maintenance to and replacement of those pipelines. Response: LAFCo lacks information or knowledge to respond to this finding as it is directed at knowledge and information in the possession of the sanitary districts. Subject to the foregoing, LAFCo will not provide a response.
F7:
Funds for treatment plants pass from ratepayers through the independent sanitary districts to the treatment plants; the sanitary districts add little value. Response: LAFCo disagrees with this finding in that LAFCo finds that the cities and districts have created efficiencies by sharing treatment plants rather than individually operating multiple plants. The cities and districts also build sewage treatment costs into sewer service charges so that the sewage treatment plant operator receives revenues in an efficient manner.
F8:
The total budget for operating the boards of the six districts studied is over $225,000. East Palo Alto’s average annual compensation for directors is $18,000, 66% higher than the next highest (and much larger) district, West Bay. Bayshore and East Palo Alto offer employee‐type benefits to directors including dental insurance. Response: LAFCo lacks information or knowledge to respond to this finding as it is directed at knowledge and information in the possession of the sanitary districts. Subject to the foregoing, LAFCo will not provide a response.
F9:
The pipelines of the six districts are aging, with almost half having been laid over 50 years ago. These pipes are approaching end of life. Response: LAFCo lacks information or knowledge to respond to this finding as it is directed at knowledge and information in the possession of the sanitary districts. Subject to the foregoing, LAFCo will not provide a response.
F10:
There are many wholly or partially redundant activities across the six independent districts, including board costs, financial audits, legal services, and engineering. Response: LAFCo agrees and has made similar determinations in municipal service reviews and sphere of influence updates. Response to the 2015‐2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report San Mateo County’s Cottage Industry of Sanitary Districts September 22, 2016
F11:
Most of the independent sanitary districts rely almost entirely on contractors to fulfill their responsibilities. Response: LAFCo lacks information or knowledge to respond to this finding as it is directed at knowledge and information in the possession of the sanitary districts. Subject to the foregoing, LAFCo will not provide a response.
F12:
In many cases, district leadership is unfamiliar with the existing and emerging technologies for improving sewer system performance while reducing costs. Response: LAFCo lacks information or knowledge to respond to this finding as it is directed at knowledge and information in the possession of the sanitary districts. Subject to the foregoing, LAFCo will not provide a response.
F13:
The proliferation of sanitary districts within San Mateo County makes it challenging to coordinate an emergency response. The districts themselves have not reviewed or discussed emergency/disaster planning within their boards in the past year. Response: LAFCo lacks information or knowledge to respond to this finding as it is directed at knowledge and information in the possession of the sanitary districts. Subject to the foregoing, LAFCo will not provide a response.
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
(R2): EPASD doesnot believe consolidation with West Bay Sanitary Districtand/or the City of East Palo Alto will,improve ratesor the efficiency in which services our provided as discussed in greater detail above. As such, we humbly decline partldpatlon in the discussions mentioned in R2 and the recommendation will not be implemented.
R3:
Form a committee of Board members (Granada Community Services District, Montara Water and Sanitary District), Council members (HalfMoon Bay), and staff from each to plan the consolidation or assumption of services provided by these two districts. Evaluate alternatives and determine the benefits to ratepayers. Issue a report with recommendations and a plan by September 30,2017. GCSD Response: GCSD has formed such a committee and requested a meeting with Montara Water and Sanitary District as required by LAFCO. MWSD's board declined to discuss this with GCSD. There are understandable reasons why consolidation or assumption of services would not be prudent at this time. Virtually none of the constituents of the above-named agencies have any interest in such consolidation, and in GCSD's case, since GCSD has by far the lowest rates of the three agencies, it would result in an increase in rates to GCSD's ratepayers while providing no benefit to them and at the same time losing local control. Additionally, GCSD has its own voter-approved bond funding and repayment assessment district. Most of these districts have multiple different functions, different assessment areas, different reserves, and different fees. All consolidation plans ignore the high costs to implement a consolidation. When and if this changes in the future GCSD will be willing to discuss consolidation or other approaches. The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards ofBayshore Sanitary District, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Granada Community Services District, Montara Water & Sanitary District, West Bay Sanitary District, and Westborough Water District do the following:
R4:
N.A. The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of Bayshore Sanitary District, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Granada Community Services District, Montara Water and Sanitary District, West Bay Sanitary District, and Westborough Water District do the following: Grand Jury Recommendation RS. Improve information visibility on their website [sic], including key system characteristics, rates and rate history, sewer system management plans, sanitary sewer overflows, and board membercompensation. Keysystem characteristics would include population served, number of connections, number of miles of pipe (gravity, forced Maine), number of pump stations and number of pumps, average dry weatherflow, and average wet weather flow. Ensure all information is up-to-date. Refresh website by September 30, 2016. MWSD Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but MWSD has already begun this work. The District notes that much of this information is already on its website, but it will ensure that all of it is and is easy to find. What's more, the District recently contracted with opengov.org to Hon. Joseph C. Scott, Judge of the SuperiorCourt September 2, 2016 increase transparency by enabling the public to explore budget and transactional data online to gain trust and learn how their tax and rate dollars are spent. Work to transition financial information to this web-based transparency system is underway. Grand Jury Recommendation R6. Implement and publish performance management metrics including but not limited to the Effective Utility Managementframework, beginning with fiscal Year 2016-2017. MWSD Response: MWSD agrees. The District already includes metrics within its strategic planning, operational and capital improvement plans. However, the District concurs that a consolidated set of metrics would be beneficial and will develop a custom set of metrics that serve its needs. The District will reference the Effective Utility Management framework in developing its metrics. Grand Jury Recommendation R7. Adjust rates over the next five years, so that all costs are recovered from ratepayers, and the reliance on property tax is eliminated. Transition property tax revenues to neighboring cities to be used for community benefit. MWSD Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. In characterizing district property tax allocations under Proposition 13 (Cal. Const. Art. A §i) as a "subsidv," (GJR, p28), the Grand Jury loses sight of the fact that the tax revenue is put to district purposes benefitting taxpayers, including those within the districts. While eliminating the districts' property tax allocations would result in their share being "allocated elsewhere" (GJR, p. 29L the Grand Jury provides no suggestion as to what would be a better use than wastewater collection, treatment and disposal - functions that are essential to the public health, welfare and safety. Notably, no misuse of the revenue is claimed. Grand Jury Recommendation R8. Mail notices to ratepayers at least annually with an explanation of the dollar amount of sewer service charges being billed, and the rationale. Provide information on the prior five years' rates for comparison purposes. Display the portion of the rate that is related to collection activities, and the portion allocated to treatment. Mail notices approximately 30 days before the mailing of the property tax bills. Initiate mailings by November 2016. MWSD Response: This recommendation will be implemented in an upcoming newsletter. MWSD plans to consolidate the requested information in R8 and R9 into a single annual report with other useful information, publish it on its website and notify customers of its availability through its regular mailings. Grand Jury Recommendation R9. Notify ratepayers annually of the elected nature of board, role and compensation of Board members, and process for becoming a candidate. Encourage active participation by ratepayers. This notification may be included in the mailing that explains the rationale for rates. Initiate notification by November 2016 MWSD Response: This recommendation will be implemented in an upcoming newsletter. MWSD plans to consolidate the requested information in R8 and R9 into a single annual report with other useful information, publish it on its website and notify customers of its availability through its regular mailings. Grand Jury Recommendation RiO. Establish term limits for the members of their boards of directors by June 30,2017. Hon. Joseph C. Scott, Judge of the Superior Court September 2, 2016 MWSD Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. As described under FlO above, MWSD has an above average record of contested elections and an average tenure of just over 10 years for Board members. It is noteworthy that many directors comment that it can take a couple of years to become educated in the complexities of the organization and to be working at full capacity. The District has enjoyed the benefits of Directors with high dedication and enough tenure to be very effective in their District work. The last election was contested and two new directors were elected . The upcoming election is also contested. MWSD does not see the need for or benefit to term limits. To the contrary, term limits would artificially eliminate very dedicated and effective directors from serving the community. Grand Jury Recommendation RH. Establish a procurement process for professional services to include formal evaluation of existing service providers, issuance of Request for Proposals, regular reviews of existing providers, and a structured negotiation process by March 31, 2017 MWSD Response: This recommendation will be implemented. MWSD concurs that clear, fair and cost effective procurement processes are important, and maintains a number of procurement policies and procedures. MWSD will review and update its procurement policies with assistance of legal counsel, as appropriate in light of the recommendations. Grand Jury Recommendation R12. Demonstrate active participation in professional organizations focused on the work ofsanitary districts, such as California Water Environment Association, by June 30, 2017. Require CWEA certification of district operators, including contractors, by June 30, 2017. MWSD Response: The features of this recommendation are already in effect. MWSD already participates in numerous professional organizations, including: Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), California Association of Sanitary Agencies (CASAl, Underground Service Alert (USA), California Special Districts Association (CSDA), California Groundwater Association (CGA), and other relevant professional associations. These facts are not recognized in
R5:
Improve information visibility on their website, including key system characteristics, rates and rate history, sewer system management plans, sanitary sewer overflows, and board member compensation. Key system characteristics would include population served, number of connections, number of miles of pipe (gravity, forced main), number of pump stations and number of pumps, average dry weather flow, and average wet weather flow. Ensure all information is up to date. Refresh website by September 30, 2016. GCSD Response: GCSD will be carrying out this recommendation, although September 30, 2016 is too short a time frame to accomplish all of this, particularly in light of launching its parks and recreation function. The District has already updated its website for items mentioned in the Report such as minutes, financial reports, and audits. Avenue Alhambra, 3 r d Floor ~ P. o. Box 335 - EI Granada, California 94018 Telephone: (650) 726-7093 ~ Facsimile: (650) 726-7099 - E-mail: gsdsanitary@comcast.net Grand Jury Response Letter September 21, 2016 Page Six
R6:
Implement and publish performance management metrics including but not limited to the Effective Utility Management framework, beginning with Fiscal Year 2016 2017. GCSD Response: Internal performance management metrics are in place. Moving forward, the District will look to preparing a more formal set of performance metrics, possibly in conjunction with its Sewer System Management Plan.
R7:
Adjust rates over the next five years so that all costs are recovered from ratepayers, and the reliance on property tax is eliminated. Transition property tax revenues to neighboring cities to be used for community benefit. GCSD Response: GCSD is already in the process of transitioning a portion or all property tax revenue to park and recreation services on an as-needed basis. Additionally, the thought that GCSD ratepayers would agree to transfer property taxes paid by them to a neighboring city to fund city operations is impractical, legally unauthorized, unrealistic, and unreasonable. Furthermore, since these property taxes are paid exclusively by GCSD residents, it is difficult to understand why those taxpayers would want their property taxes be transferred to neighboring cities for the city's operations? Note that as part of the LAFCO approval, a portion of the property taxes utilized for parks and recreation which are collected in that portion of GCSD which overlaps City territory is paid annually to the City of Half Moon Bay for their park and recreation purposes.
R8:
Mail notices to ratepayers at least annually with an explanation of the dollar amount of sewer service charges being billed and the rationale. Provide information on the prior five years' rates for comparison purposes. Display the portion of the rate that is related to collection activities, and the portion allocated to treatment. Mail notices approximately 30 days before the mailing of the property tax bills. Initiate mailings by November 2016. GCSD Response: GCSD will consider this. Placing the information on the GCSD Website may be preferable because it costs thousands of dollars to mail a newsletter and few of our ratepayers read the newsletters. Also, we're unsure exactly what ratepayers would utilize this information for. Constituents have previously complained that GCSD is wasting their money by mailing information to them.
R9:
Notify ratepayers annually of elected nature of Board, role and compensation of Board members, and process for becoming a candidate. Encourage active participation by ratepayers. This notification may be included in the mailing that explains the rationale for rates. Initiate notification by November 2016. GCSD Response. See response to Recommendation 8. GCSD will place this information on the District's web site. Avenue Alhambra. 3 r d Floor - P. o. Box 335 - EI Granada, California 94018 Telephone: (650) 726-7093 - Facsimile: (650) 726-7099 - E-mail: gsdsanitary@comcasLnet Grand Jury Response Letter September 21, 2016 Page Seven RIO. Establish term limits for the members of their boards of directors by June 30,2017. GCSD Response: GCSD is concerned that this is likely to result in difficulties filling vacancies with qualified people. There is a benefit to having directors with some experience on the board because the learning curve is relatively steep given the fact that there are only 12 meetings per year. The election system is currently open to all District residents who would like to run for a spot on the board, and since there have been 7 contested elections in the past 10 elections, it appears the democratic process is working in GCSD. Rll. Establish a procurement process for professional services to include formal evaluation of existing service providers, issuance of Request for Proposals, regular reviews of existing providers, and a structured negotiation process by March 31, 2017. GCSD Response: The procurement process for all services, including professional services has been drafted and is planned for adoption prior to year-end. Evaluation and review of existing service providers has generally been ongoing, but will be formalized by March 31, 2017 as part of this process.
R10:
(RiO): EPASD is not supportive of term limits because critical Institutional knowledge is lost when term limits are implemented and therefore this recommendation will not be implemented.
R11:
(Rll): EPASD supports this recommendation and already has in place a rigorous bidding process with internal controls.
R12:
Demonstrate active participation in professional organizations focused on the work of sanitary districts, such as California Water Environment Association, by June 30,2017. Require CWEA certification of district operators, including contractors, by June 30, 2017. GCSD Response: GCSD is a member of CASA and the CSDA. GCSD does not employ or contract for operators, therefore certification is not applicable. The District General Manager is also active in the Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works , and his firm is heavily involved with the AWWA, the CWEA, and the APWA.
R13:
Develop plans for coordinating resources in the event of a local or regional emergency by June 30, 2017. GCSD Response: GCSD is a participating member of Coastside Emergency Coordinator's group headed by the Coastside San Mateo County Sheriffs Homeland Security Division and Office of Emergency Services. In addition, SAM coordinates emergency planning among all its member agencies, including GCSD. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury Report and to provide our input in this process. Sincerely, GRANADA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ~~4~~ Matthew Clark Board President 504 Avenue Alhambra, 3 r d Floor - P. o. Box 335 - EI Granada, California 94018 Telephone: (650) 726-7093 - Facsimile: (650) 726-7099 - E-mail: gsdsanitary@comcast.net CITY COUNCIL 2016 ivlARK ADDIEGO, ~\'lA YOR PRADEEP GUIYf A, PHD , VICE ivlAYOR
R14:
and will determine whether to comply with them by December 29, 2016. The Westborough Water District does not agree with, and will not implement, Recommendations
R15:
Develop, publish, and track separate budgets for sewer and water services, beginning with Fiscal Year 2016-2017. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. A copy of the District's Annual Financial Reports for the last 5 years can be found on the District's website under BudgetlFinance. The Annual Financial Reports specifically detail the separation of revenue, expense, assets, depreciation, connection fees, and reserves for water and sewer. In addition, the District has made every reasonable effort to provide information to the public and, upon the recommendation of the Grand Jury, has obtained a District Transparency Certificate of Excellence by the Special District Leadership Foundation. In order to obtain the certificate the District had to meet certain criteria for transparency of District budgets. Moreover, the District has never had any request or complaints whatsoever from a customer requesting information from the District that couldn't be found in our Annual Financial Reports.
R16:
Explore the feasibility of establishing a flat rate for capital improvements separate from the water usage rate. Report back at a public meeting by December 31, 2016. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. There is no justification in the Grand Jury's report for establishing a flat rate for capital improvement separate from the water usage rate. Changing the District's rate structure from a usage-based rate would require the District to perform a costly rate study and may require renegotiation ofour agreement with the North San Mateo County Sanitation District. Currently, new development is required to pay fees toward capital improvements. Other improvements that benefit the entirety of this small district are paid out of reserves. Without some explanation or discussion as to the reasons for this recomm endation, the District is unabl e to respond further.
R17:
N.A. RiB. N.A. Errors in Tables , Table 14: "Use of Contractors by Function in Independent Sanitary Districts" shows no District Clerk for MWSD. MWSD has a full time employed District Clerk who is exclusive to the sewer function. , Table 15 "Use of Operational and Planning & Control Technologies by District" shows a "No" under Operator Certification. All operators working in the Montara System are State certified. Effective Utility Management is shown as not utilized, which is incorrect. , Append ix K: Director Tenure by District incorrectly shows Jim Harvey, Kathryn Slater-Carter, andScott BoydasBoardmemberssince2003. JimHarveyhasserved since 2002, Scott Boydsince 1998, and Kathryn Slater-Carter since 1995. CITY COUNCIL MOTION September 20, 2016 City Council approved the following regular City Council Consent Item: Motion #: 16-099 Agenda Item #: 4B Subject• City Council to consider and approve the City response to the 2015-2016 San Mateo County' s Civil Grand Jury Report Regarding the Cottage Industry of Sanitary Districts in the County. The Grand Jury recommends that Boards ofthe East Palo Alto Sanitary District and West Bay Sanitary District and the City Council ofEast Palo Alto do the following: For a committee ofBoard members (East Palo Alto Sanitary District, West Bay Sanitary District), Council members (East Palo Alto), and stafffrom each to discuss the assumption ofservices provided by East Palo Alto Sanitary District into either West Bay Sanitary District or the City ofEast Palo Alto. Evaluate alternatives and determine the benefits to ratepayers. Issue a report with recommendations and a plan by September 30, 2017. Agenda Item #413 was moved by Councilmember Carlos Romero and seconded by Councilmember Ruben Abrica. Vote as Follows: Ayes: ROMERO. ABRICA, RUTHERFORD, MOODY GAUTHIER Noes: Absent: Abstain: I, Terrie Gillen, Deputy City Clerk, certify that the City Council approved the City's response by motion at the regular City Council meeting ofSeptember 20, 2016. 4\ L - TERRIE GILLEN, Date Deputy City Clerk E'PASJJ C2S";j~~,~;=~:~~~~~,~:!t~J!;~7:"- SOARDOF DIRECTORS' 901 WeeksStreet Glenda Savage, President EastPaloAlto,CA 94303 . , Bethzabe Yallez, VicePresident Phone: (650)325-9021 Joan Sykes-Miessi, Secretary Fax: (650) 325-5173 Goro Mitchell, Director www.epasd.com Dennis Scherzer, Director Karen Maxey, Interim General Manailer September 27,,2016 Members 2015-2016 SMCountyCivil Grand Jury C/O Hon. Joseph C. Scott SuperiorCourt, CountyofSan Mateo Hallof Justice 400County Center Redwood City,CA 94063-1655 .DearGrand Jury Members: This missive is the.East Palo Alto Sanitary District Governing Board approved response to your report titled: "San'MateoCounty'sCottageIndustryofSanitaryDistricts,"filedon June29,2016. First,wewould like to commend the Grand Jury members and staff for a job well done. The report is truly a well researched andwrittendocumentwith very usefulconclusionsandrecommendations. Ourdistrictdoes notfully concurwith allof.therecommendationsandfindingsofthereport. Thepurposeofthisletteris to humblyenhancethe Reportwith informationthatmaynot have been knownto theReport'sauthors. Please see the information below: I. Well EducatedandTrainedGoverningBoardProduces Benefitsforthe District All EPASD Board Members have received training certificates in areas of board management, district finance, districtoperations,human resources, environmental managementorboardleadershipwithinthe last12 months. Recently, Board Membershavetakenunpaid leadership roleson behalf ofthe District. For example, a I Board Member with an environmental science background engaged in efforts that have impacted technology usage in ,a multlmllllon dollar upgrade at the regional water treatment plant. This included dozens unpaid hours invested by the Board Membertoproduce a full report including charts and diagrams on alternative treatment methods that could save ratepayers millions of dollars in capital and operating cost in the future. In addition, two Board Members with demographic and social justice backgrounds, successfully challenged a regional water agency's definition of low-income resulting in a grant to the District of over $400,000. A Board Member with a survey research background has designed and implemented a mail survey to assess the impacts of our newsletter. This Board Member will be analyzing the results and produce a written report pro bono. II. The Gold Standard The Report mentioned that among special districts and municipalities in San Mateo County, there is no "Gold Standard," related to sewage spills and overflows. We would like you to consider EPASD ~s the gold standard. We have had no punitive regulatory action taken against the District in the last decade related to spills or overflows. III. FiscalAccountability We are happy that the Grand Jury found that our district had rock solid fiscal propriety. This is not by accident. EPASD usesa third partyaccountingserviceandchangesauditorsevery twoyears. Allauditsin the last decade have been stellar. We also use a firm to inform our long term budgeting. In the last two years; we have produced a new accounting policies and procedures manual which employs our FinanceCommittee to reconcile bank statements; an unprecedented process to help ensure financial accountability. EPASD has not raised annual sewage rates 3 of 5 years and has maintained fund reserves for the last 10 years. The rate increases were only taken because of obligations t~ fund capital improvements at the regional water treatment facility. The Board-has in 2009 lowered its meeting stipend rate by 15 percent and has only taken two annual cost of living increases in the last five years. The Board has also set limits on the number of professional trainings that can be attended by Board Member in a 12 month period. IV. Consolidation Our friends at the City of East Palo Alto meet with EPASD on a regular basis via our Intergovernmental Committee Meetings. In these meetings, staff, Board Members and City Council Members meet to share informationandfindwaysto collaborateandcoordinate operations. Thishasresulted inaMemorandum of Understanding to share information on development and other projects as well as the recent sharing of environmental permits between the agencies. The City of East Palo Alto has one utility (municipal water' which is managed by a third party private firm. Given this precedent by the City of not managing its utility, the City may not have the capacity or want to manage sewer services. Similar, there may not beanet costsavingsto ratepayers ifathird partyfor-profitentitymanagedsewerservicesatthe City. In addition, West BaySanitary District has some ofthe highest rates in the County, consolidation in this case _ may increase Sanitary Sewer charges for our ratepayers. V. Transparencv, Community Education and Engagement In,the last five years EPASD has embarked on an effort to engage ratepayers and the community. We completedaservicearea-widedoor-to-doorsurveyofall householdsto determinethe bestwayto engage . and educate the community to our work. Subsequently, a Public Relations Report was produced with recommendationsinformedbythecommunityto performoutreach. Anadhoccommitteewasformed to provide input into the first two projects recommended by the PR Report: 1) an updated and highly interactivewebsiteand2laquarterlynewsletter. Wearecurrently, engagedinasurveyprocessto assess thefruition ofthenewsletterand waysto improveit. VI. SewerSystem Infrastructure I EPASD has completed the filming of all of its sewer lines, assessed and prioritized segments for non replacement and repair. We have plans and monies set aside to replace our sip line and. a-separate: $500,000 ayearcapitalimprovement plan. VII. Review of District Benefits The EPASD Human Resources, Management and Organization Committee recently undertook a· compensation studyto ensurethat wageandbenefit levelswerecongruentwith other special districts. Subsequently, the committee isreviewingof Districtbenefits.Ievelsto ensurethe long-termfinancial stabilityofthe District. VIII.FindingsoftheGrandJury ,/ We cannot fully agree with all of the Findings (F-l through F13) because we have not independently '. verifiedthe data. IX. Recommendations of the GrandJury Recommendation2(R2): EPASDdoesnot believeconsolidationwith West BaySanitaryDistrictand/orthe Cityof EastPalo Altowill,improveratesorthe efficiency inwhich services our providedas discussed in greater detail above. As such, we humbly decline partldpatlon in the discussions mentioned in R2 and the recommendation will not be implemented.
R18:
Initiate a service review of the Westborough Water District to examine whether its operations might be more efficiently and effectively run if they were consolidated with another entity’s operations. Response: The recommendation will be implemented. LAFCo will include a municipal service review and sphere of influence update for the Westborough Water District in the 2017 calendar year in conjunction with a municipal service review and sphere update for the City of South San Francisco. Respectfully submitted, Martha Poyatos Executive Officer CC: General Managers, Independent Sanitary Districts P.O. Box 370131 8888 Cabrillo Hwy Montara Water Montara, CA 94037-0131 and Sanitary District t: 650.728.3545 • f: 650.728.8556 email: mwsd@coastside.net Serving the Commumly of Montara and Moss Beach web: mwsd.montara.org September 2, 2016 Hon. Joseph C. Scott Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Ctr.; 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA94063-1655 Re: Responseof Montara Water and Sanitary District ("MWSD") to 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury Report Regarding Sanitary Districts This letter is MWSD's response to the Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, "San Mateo County's Cottage Industry of Sanitary Districts" distributed by the Court Executive Officer under letter dated June 29, 2016 ("GJR"). MWSD's governing Board approved this response at a public meeting on September 1,2016. MWSD appreciates the extensive time and effort the Grand Jury devoted to its review of the six independent special districts in the County that provide sanitary sewer service. The wastewater industry is highly regulated, operationally complex and replete with technical requirements that are not readily understood outside the industry. The Grand Jury is to be commended for undertaking the challenge presented by its review. Although responses only to findings and recommendations are required (Pen. C. §933(c)), we discuss additional portions of the GJR pertaining to MWSD that render corresponding findings inaccurate or do not support the findings or recommendations. For example, the GJR noted that 45 agencies in the County are " ... involved in sewage collection and treatment..." (GJR p.l), yet the Grand Jury limited its review to six special districts. We are concerned that this small sample and narrow focus on a few agencies limits the accuracy of the generalized conclusions found in the GJR. Nonetheless, we concur with many comments and conclusions found in the GJR and appreciate that they provide useful third party insight into our District and industry. We will take action on those as noted below in our responses to the Findings and Recommendations. We respectfully offer additional information for accuracy, especially regarding public accountability, fiscal responsibility, and operational competence as they relate to our District as discussed below. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY. Contrary to the GJR's assertion that sanitary districts have minimal interaction with the public compared to water districts (GJR p. 27), MWSD has a consistent and robust record of public interaction. For example: MWSD provides outreach through newsletters; invites the public and local officials to attend grand openings of new facilities, such as its Alta Vista water reservoirs; maintains an up-to-date website, distributes press releases, sends bi-monthly bill stuffers; and places signs in public areas for special notices. Development of MWSD's Strategic Plan included two Board public planning workshops that were attended by members of the public as well as a community meeting convened specifically to obtain public input, which drew some 70 citizens. Hon. Joseph C. Scott, Judge of the Superior Court Page2 September 2, 2016 What's more, members of the public regularly participate in Board meetings and the District's Board meetings are televised and available online. Being a small community, citizens call or talk in person with Directors and staff on a regular basis about their questions and concerns. Several District Directors also participate in the Next Door online forums in their neighborhoods. Even though the services we provide are limited to sanitary, water and solid waste matters, many in our community perceive MWSD as the only form of local government that represents them and their interests. We believe this representation is valuable, even when we cannot act on it. The Grand Jury Report, itself, acknowledges that having elected board members gives the public an important link to their community (GJR p. 25; see, also fn. 31). An example of this occurred in 2001, when Montara and Moss Beach residents wanted local control of their water supply, and voted 81 percent in favor of taxing themselves nearly $1,000 per year so that the District could take over water service from an out-of-area, for-profit operator. (see: http://smartvoter.org/2001/11/06/ca/sm/meas/V1) FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY. MWSD takes numerous actions to ensure fiscal accountability: 1) incorporates financial and rate planning in the annual strategic planning process; 2) maintains long-term capital improvement and financial plans; 3) worked to ensure its sanitary rates are rising below the rate of inflation; 4) has never received anything but an unqualified opinion over the presentation of its annual audited financial statements; and 5) notes that there is no evidence of financial impropriety in the GJR or elsewhere. Nonetheless, in response to the GJR, the District will increase its communication to the public about finances and rates as indicated in our response to Grand Jury Recommendations numbers eight and nine. OPERATIONAL COMPETENCE. The GJR challenges the operational competence of MWSD and other Districts . This is puzzling given the facts. The GJR claims District operators are not certified, but in fact every one of them is certified. The GJR claims the District is not familiar with a number of current technologies and planning methods, yet the District is familiar with every one listed in the Report and utilizes all that are cost-effective and beneficial to the MWSD system. The GJR claims that the District staff and Board do not participate in professional organizations, yet both Directors and staff are engaged in leadership positions in professional organizations. Additionally, the GJR does not appear to recognize the collection system maintenance program used by MWSD. City of Half Moon Bay, Granada Community Services District and MWSD collaborate to receive contracted sewer collection services through our ownership in Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM) thereby obtaining an economy of scale, levels of expertise and access to more advanced equipment than each District could obtain on its own. This is laudable and is in line with best practices that promote collaboration and regional partnerships. Asnoted at the beginningof this letter, MWSDappreciates the time and effortof the GrandJury in undertaking the task of reviewing independent sewerage districts in San Mateo County. Our responses contained in this letter underscore our commitment to serving our customers well. Very truly yours, ;;.~ }~"'\./ :' -: Jim Harvey, President, MWSD Board cc: General Manager, Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside; General Manager. Granada Community Services District; City Manager, City of Half Moon Bay; Sanitary Engineer, Montara Water and Sanitary District; Legal Counsel, Montara Water and Sanitary Distr ict Hon. Joseph C.Scott, Judge of the Superior Court September 2, 2016
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The San Mateo County Law Library provides a valuable and unique service to the residents of San Mateo County that cannot be replicated elsewhere in the County.
F2:
At least half of those who use the San Mateo County Law Library are members of the general public including County and city employees and students. However, the Law Library receives no public funds beyond the minimal amount received from civil court filing fees.
F3:
Due to a reduction in civil court filings and the increased granting of civil court filing fee waivers, San Mateo County Law Library revenues have declined by 52% over the past five years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors promptly adopts a formal policy to mitigate the Law Library’s fiscal crisis, and establish ongoing supplemental funding for the Law Library commencing with the FY 2016-2017 County budget.
F4:
Law library collections and services are expensive to maintain and support. In trying to maintain its legal services, the San Mateo County Law Library has cut back on hours and materials, reduced staffing, increased fund-raising efforts, and drawn down its dwindling reserve funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors promptly adopts a formal policy to mitigate the Law Library’s fiscal crisis, and establish ongoing supplemental funding for the Law Library commencing with the FY 2016-2017 County budget.
F5:
The County of San Mateo is required by statute to provide adequate space and basic maintenance for its law library, but has no further state-mandated responsibility. The statutes governing law libraries, however, specifically authorize counties to provide additional annual allocations supporting their law libraries.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
A Trustees' Campus Safety Study is underway that will gather research and best practices in campus safety, and review structure, policies, and procedures on campus including addressing the issue of arming campus Public Safety Officers. The report is due year-end 2016.
F2:
In an emergency, unarmed Public Safety Officers must contact local police for assistance.
F3:
Interviewees reported inconsistent mobile phone coverage on all three of the SMCCCD campuses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
SMCCCD Trustees should direct the District Security Director to review options for improving direct communications between campus security and local law enforcement. This may include implementing a common communications system, developing a campus- specific or district-wide dispatch system, working with local mobile phone carriers to deal with “dead spots,” or another method(s) to eliminate unnecessary delays. An improved system should be operational by July 31, 2017.
F4:
The San Mateo County Community College District does not have a 911- dispatch office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
SMCCCD Trustees should direct the District Security Director to review options for improving direct communications between campus security and local law enforcement. This may include implementing a common communications system, developing a campus- specific or district-wide dispatch system, working with local mobile phone carriers to deal with “dead spots,” or another method(s) to eliminate unnecessary delays. An improved system should be operational by July 31, 2017.
F5:
Only one or two radio(s) per campus are compatible with local law enforcements' radio system. If a Public Safety Officer encounters a crisis situation and is not carrying this special radio, emergency response time is likely increased. SMCCCD Department of Public Safety. https://www.facebook.com/San-Mateo-County-Community-College- District-Dept-of-Public-Safety-208281952851491/. Public Safety Office senior official: interview by the Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
SMCCCD Trustees should direct the District Security Director to review options for improving direct communications between campus security and local law enforcement. This may include implementing a common communications system, developing a campus- specific or district-wide dispatch system, working with local mobile phone carriers to deal with “dead spots,” or another method(s) to eliminate unnecessary delays. An improved system should be operational by July 31, 2017.
F6:
Training between campus security and local law enforcement is not routinely conducted.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
SMCCCD Trustees should direct the District Security Director to develop a comprehensive training plan incorporating all regular and any new intra-campus and inter-campus safety exercises and training events. This plan should be published by October 31, 2016, and reviewed/updated on at least an annual basis.
R3:
SMCCCD Trustees should direct the District Security Director to develop a plan to implement an annual large-scale training exercise coordinated and conducted between campus security, local law enforcement, and other regional emergency response agencies. This plan should be completed by March 31, 2017, and the exercise held by September 30, 2017.
F7:
On-campus emergency preparedness drills including lockdown drills for student, faculty, and staff are conducted throughout the year.
F8:
Student orientation does not include comprehensive information on safety awareness and emergency crisis protocols.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
SMCCCD Trustees should direct the District Security Director to review safety awareness and emergency protocol/procedure information provided at student orientation and make any improvements deemed necessary. This should be completed in time for the beginning of the 2016 Fall Quarter.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The testing of rape kits in a timely manner is vital to law enforcement as well as to victims.
F2:
AB 1517 (the Sexual Assault Victims’ DNA Bill of Rights) recommends that forensic laboratories process all rape kits within 120 days of receipt.
F3:
As of June 2016, there is no backlog of new rape kits in San Mateo County. The procedures employed by local law enforcement, the Keller Center, and the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Forensic Laboratory result in the timely processing of rape kits, according to the timeframes recommended by AB 1517.
F4:
The procedures and timeframes in AB 1517 are recommendations and not mandates; the State of California can only encourage counties to adopt the guidelines because the State does not provide any funding.
F5:
The Sheriff’s Office Forensic Laboratory does not currently report comprehensive statistics on rape kit processing to the public; however, the Lab keeps records on rape kit testing and analysis that could be compiled and released.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff’s Office Forensic Laboratory should follow the recommendations of AB 1517— the Sexual Assault Victims’ DNA Bill of Rights—as their standard procedure and should test and analyze rape kits and enter qualified data into CODIS within 120 days of receipt.
R2:
The Sheriff’s Office Forensic Laboratory should annually produce a publicly available report concerning its processing of rape kits that includes, but is not limited to: the number of rape kits received from the Keller Center, the law enforcement agency associated with each kit, the number of kits tested and analyzed by the Lab, the number of DNA profiles uploaded to CODIS, the number of rape kits not tested at law enforcement request, and the reasons for not testing. Statistics should also include the number of days from login at the Lab to completion of processing. Victim Services is an organization within the District Attorney’s Office that assists victims of violent crimes with claims for financial reimbursement from the state for such things as housing, relocation, and therapy.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
In response to a 2013-2014 Grand Jury’s recommendation, the County indicated that it would undertake an analysis of the Harbor District following LAFCo’s completion of a Municipal Service Review of the district.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County Board of Supervisors will initiate an independent study of alternative future scenarios for the Harbor District so that they may make an informed decision regarding the future of the Harbor District. • This study should evaluate possible outcomes including dissolving the Harbor District and naming the County as the successor agency. Other outcomes to be considered include returning the Oyster Point Marina to South San Francisco and naming the County as the successor to Pillar Point Harbor only. The Board should seek input on other potential scenarios in a public process. • The study should look beyond any near-term performance improvements given the long history of Harbor District dysfunction. • The study should be initiated by September 30, 2016. The study should be completed within six months, and the results should be reviewed in a public meeting.
F2:
LAFCo completed a Municipal Service Review of the Harbor District in July 2015 at which time LAFCo reaffirmed a zero Sphere of Influence for the Harbor District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County Board of Supervisors will begin San Mateo County Requires further the process of dissolution of the Harbor District Board of Supervisors analysis by December 31, 2014. San Mateo County Disagree Harbor District
F3:
As of June 2016, the Board of Supervisors has not made a decision regarding the dissolution of the Harbor District and there is no indication that the County has commenced the analysis it promised in response to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury’s recommendation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Harbor District will commence study, by San Mateo County Agree September 1, 2014, of the Santa Cruz Port District Harbor District as a model for financial planning and reporting to provide clarity to enterprise/non- enterprise revenue and expense categories.
F4:
Although Supervisor Horsley proposed an 18-month timeframe, which would otherwise end in December 2016, for the Harbor District to improve its performance and meet benchmarks, the district presented a report of its performance in May 2016 and the County is now in a position to commence the analysis it promised in response to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury’s recommendation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Harbor District will develop a plan to San Mateo County Disagree eliminate the use of property tax revenue for Harbor District offsetting enterprise losses by March 30, 2015.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
The Harbor District will standardize detailed San Mateo County Agree quarterly financial reporting at commission Harbor District meetings by March 30, 2015.
R6:
The Harbor District will identify a successor San Mateo County Requires further agency to assume control of the West Trail by Harbor District analysis December 31, 2014.
R7:
The Harbor District will explore transferring San Mateo County Agree or cost-sharing, with the City of Half Moon Bay, Harbor District the co-sponsorship with the Army Corps of The City of Half Moon Disagree Engineers of the Surfer’s Beach dredging Bay operation by December 31, 2014.
R8:
The Harbor District will continue to seek San Mateo County Agree interested parties to acquire non-revenue Harbor District producing surplus properties.
R9:
The Harbor District will explore the San Mateo County Agree outsourcing of management of all commercial real Harbor District properties to a real estate management firm by December 31, 2014. Table 1: 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report Recommendations and Responses Recommendation Responding Body Response
R10:
As soon as possible after the November San Mateo County Agree 2014 Harbor Commissioner elections, the Harbor Harbor District District will form standing and appropriate ad hoc committees, which meet regularly.
R11:
Harbor District commissioners and general San Mateo County Agree manager will earn Special District Leadership Harbor District Foundation certifications by July 1, 2015.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Only about 20% of all law enforcement officers in San Mateo County are CIT-trained. There are significant barriers to enrolling officers. Beyond the training itself, CIT is an important forum where all who deal with children in crisis—EMTs, SMART staff, schools, police—can learn from each other.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Office should devise a plan by year-end 2016 to expand CIT training to include school representatives and those from other public agencies that deal with children in crisis. Additional CIT training sessions should be added if necessary so that law enforcement agencies can continue to encourage attendance by their officers. The plan should: (a) include ways to encourage those in leadership positions at police departments, schools, and other public agencies to attend; and (b) include refresher courses.
F2:
F3. The SMART car program is unique and highly effective at managing mental health emergencies in a sensitive manner, keeping adults and adolescents out of emergency rooms whenever possible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Planners for CIT training—the Sheriff’s Office and Behavioral Health and Recovery Services—should amend the curriculum to include techniques for dealing with situations unique to schools and other public agencies working in the area of youth mental health.
F3:
The SMART car program is unique and highly effective at managing mental health emergencies in a sensitive manner, keeping adults and adolescents out of emergency rooms whenever possible. The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Behavioral Health and Recovery Services should extend as soon as possible the two-car SMART program by at least one hour so that the high-volume time between 3:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. is fully staffed by both SMART cars.
F4:
SMART can provide temporary post-crisis services, sometimes including in-person follow-up. BHRS provides on-going case-management services only to children who qualify for Medi-Cal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County’s Health System to institute an improved system of data collection and analysis regarding SMART response rates and adolescent PES admissions at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, with such collection to start no later than October 1, 2016.
F5:
Behavioral Health and Recovery Services provides adult residents with crisis-stabilization services, in-home follow-up, and a specialized mental health respite center as an alternative to Psychiatric Emergency Services hospitalization. No such programs exist for teens, even though 90% are discharged from the hospital within 24 hours.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Board of Supervisors and Behavioral Health and Recovery Services should use the data obtained as a result of R4 to determine by the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year whether to expand the non-emergency aspects of the SMART program significantly and/or augment it with other services such as a respite center and in-home services regardless of insurance status.
F6:
Data collection by the County on SMART program response rates and PES adolescent admissions at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center is not comprehensive or consistent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County’s Office of Public Safety Communications to devise a comprehensive plan to educate and collaborate with County entities and the public on the best way to call for help in a psychiatric emergency. The plan should be completed by year-end 2016.
F7:
Schools and other public agencies are often reluctant to use the 911-dispatch system because of the detrimental effects on adolescents when first responders arrive on the scene with lights and sirens activated.
F8:
The County’s Office of Public Safety Communications does not have a systematic outreach program to the public and to County entities that deal with adolescents on the best way to call 911 when a no-lights no-sirens response is appropriate.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
National statistics show the need for mental health support for K-12 students. Statistics in San Mateo County’s Adolescent Report 2014-15 reflect this same pattern for students in San Mateo County.
F2:
According to published studies, schools are one of the best places to address this need. Ibid. Kirsten Fawcett, “How to Talk to Kids and Teens about Mental Illness,” US News and World Report, September 23, 2014. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2014/09/23/how-to-talk-to-kids-and-teens-about-mental-illness. Ibid. Officials from the San Mateo Union High School District, SELPA, and StarVista: interviews by the Grand Jury. Elena Kadvany, “Ravenswood School District to Integrate Mindfulness, Yoga into Regular Curriculum,” Palo Alto Weekly, January 22, 2015. http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/01/22/ravenswood-school-district-to-integrate-mindfulness-yoga- into-regular-curriculum.
F3:
Of the County’s 94,000 public school K-12 students, more than 33,000 are publicly insured general education students. BHRS can treat such students on campus upon request.
F4:
Not all County schools accommodate on-campus treatment for general education publicly insured students, even though BHRS could provide it.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Provide a broad spectrum of mental health services and support—ranging from mental health education to one-on-one counseling—to all students on campus during the school day.
R2:
Provide BHRS full access to campuses to treat publicly insured general education students if the students and their parents so desire. The San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the County Office of Education:
R3:
The San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the County Office of Education:
Work closely with school districts to develop mental health programs and allow for access by BHRS to treat its eligible students. The COE should assist schools in investigating all sources of funds, including Measure A.
F5:
Lack of transportation to off-campus appointments can be a barrier to treatment for both publicly and privately insured students.
F6:
About 60% of publicly insured general education students needing treatment for mental health issues were not seen in school and had to seek transportation to a BHRS clinic.
F7:
About 61,000 County students, or 65%, are privately insured. BHRS does not treat privately insured students on an ongoing basis; such students are referred to their private health insurers. Therapists paid by private insurance do not provide services on campus.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Provide a broad spectrum of mental health services and support—ranging from mental health education to one-on-one counseling—to all students on campus during the school day.
F8:
Nonprofit CBOs currently provide student programs for mental health support and one-on- one counseling on some K-12 campuses. These services are open to any student who needs them.
F9:
Potential funding sources for CBO services include a school’s general budget, parent groups, local foundations, and Measure A.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the County Office of Education:
Work closely with school districts to develop mental health programs and allow for access by BHRS to treat its eligible students. The COE should assist schools in investigating all sources of funds, including Measure A.
F10:
In 2014, the County Office of Education created the position of Director of Safe and Supportive Schools, partially funded by Measure A, to coordinate mental health activities on school campuses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the County Office of Education:
Maintain and prioritize the position of Director of Safe and Supportive Schools. The COE should solidify its independent role as an in-school mental health service facilitator and advocate for increased funding for all students.
F11:
Not all schools in the County keep comprehensive and accurate data on mental health issues that surface in the school setting. Nor is there a comprehensive summary and count of all the CBOs and programs offered to students across the County. Thus it is difficult to track mental health trends among local students or to measure the success of programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the County Office of Education:
Work with all school districts to set up accurate record-keeping systems of all student mental health issues that surface on campus and CBOs providing services to schools, while protecting student confidentially. These statistics will provide data to measure the effectiveness of mental health services. The San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the County’s elementary and unified school districts:
F12:
Identification and early treatment of mental health issues in the lower grades can lead to reduced stigma and improved outcomes for all students.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the County Office of Education:
Focus on providing mental health programs and services at the K-8 level. Such early mental health education would have the added benefit of reducing stigma before it develops further.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Actual total cost to incarcerate one youth in FY 2014-2015 was $340,974 per year, which equates to approximately $934 per day.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The San Mateo County Controller's Office should perform a comprehensive financial and operations analysis of the Probation Department-Juvenile Services Division as well as those divisions of CHS and BHRS that support JSD. This analysis should be completed by December 31, 2016.
F2:
The Grand Jury developed the total cost model from the financial records of five separate entities; a County summary of these total costs was not available.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
If, as a result of the Controller’s analysis, it is determined that operating costs should be reduced and/or that the facilities should be better utilized, then the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors should direct the County Manager to establish financial and utilization goals for the Juvenile Services Division's three detention facilities by March 31, 2017.
F3:
San Mateo County's actual total costs to incarcerate juveniles are significantly higher than those reported by San Francisco and Los Angeles counties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
If, as a result of the Controller’s analysis, it is determined that operating costs should be reduced and/or that the facilities should be better utilized, then the Board of Supervisors should direct the County Manager and Chief Probation Officer to develop a plan to meet such cost-reduction goals and/or alternative-use goals by June 30, 2017, and to provide quarterly status reports of their progress to the Board at a public meeting.
F4:
Juvenile Services Division’s three facilities have only been about 45% utilized since at least 2013.
F5:
There are no current cost-reduction plans identified or in development by the Probation Department.