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 (11)
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,
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
13
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:
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
6 findings
F1:
Of the 23 San Mateo County school districts, the following 16 reported to have fields that will require replacement in the next 5 years: • Bayshore Elementary School District • Belmont-Redwood Shores School District • Brisbane School District • Burlingame School District • Cabrillo Unified School District • Hillsborough City School District • Jefferson Elementary School District • Jefferson Union High School District • Las Lomitas Elementary School District • Millbrae School District • Portola Valley School District • Redwood City School District • San Carlos School District • San Mateo Union High School District • Sequoia Union High School District • South San Francisco Unified School District 76 SportsGrass.com. http://sportsgrass.com/ 77 Cornell University, Sports Field Management. http://safesportsfields.cals.cornell.edu/grasses-for-sports-fields.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Produce written guidelines for the decision-making process involved in field installation and replacement, which shall include the following:
R1a:
Consider the uncertainty regarding the safety of tire-derived products used on school fields, particularly crumb rubber.
R1b:
Evaluate and make their decisions on policy development and field replacements based on current scientific evidence regarding the use of crumb rubber on athletic fields as it becomes available, whether or not the EPA report is complete.
R1c:
Undertake measures to increase community involvement during the field replacement evaluation process, including discussion regarding potential concerns about the safety of crumb rubber or other tire-derived products. This could be similar to the 2013 City of San Mateo study regarding the possibility of using artificial turf on its fields, which included extensive public outreach for comment, using post cards, email, website comment, community workshops and capture surveys to solicit and collect public input.
F2:
The total installation costs for each artificial turf field infilled with crumb rubber equal approximately $2.5 million - $3.7 million; the total installation costs for each natural grass field are approximately $2.0 million - $2.5 million. The annual maintenance costs for each artificial turf field infilled with crumb rubber equal approximately $10,600 per field, per year; the annual maintenance costs for each grass field equal approximately $2850 per field, per year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Consider (among other factors) the following when selecting materials for their athletic fields and playgrounds: 1. Safety to humans and animals 2. Suitability based upon the location’s intended use and frequency of use 3. Cost (of installation and lifecycle requirements) and manufacturer warranty.
F3:
High demand for field use by schools and community groups is one reason why some school districts favor the installation of artificial turf fields instead of grass.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Impose a moratorium on the utilization of artificial turf with crumb rubber infill until the Environmental Protection Agency concludes its study or until all the policies listed above have been implemented.
F4:
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “studies to date have not shown an elevated health risk from playing on fields with tire crumb rubber, but these studies have limitations and do not comprehensively evaluate the concerns about health risks from exposure to tire crumb rubber.”
F5:
The San Mateo County Office of Education reported that it is the responsibility of each school district’s Board of Trustees and Superintendent to develop policies regarding the issue of athletic field installation or replacement.
F6:
The San Mateo-Foster City School District and the San Mateo Union High School District have written policies regarding school construction and renovations, but neither has written guidelines or policies governing the decision-making process for constructing or replacing athletic fields.
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.
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
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
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.