San Mateo County Grand Jury
2017-2018
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (9)
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Increase the use of cooperative purchasing practices, including piggyback contracts and joint procurement agreements.
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.
R2:
Share with other Cities and the County Procurement Division their procurement needs in order to identify opportunities for cooperative procurements between the Cities and the County. The 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Mateo do the following by no later than February 1, 2019:
R3:
Increase the use of cooperative purchasing practices, including the development and insertion of piggyback language into County contracts, with the Cities.
R4:
Share with the Cities the County’s procurement needs to identify opportunities for further cooperative purchasing.
R5:
Relocate the County’s Procurement Division into an appropriate reporting structure, such that the Procurement Division shall report directly to the County Manager. The 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Mateo do the following by no later than July 1, 2019.
R6:
Develop and study a plan to achieve the Checkpoints on the Pathway towards City-County Procurement Cooperation within current plans to improve the Purchasing Division, including: a. Hire experienced buyers. b. Create and distribute to the Cities a register of open contracts. c. Ensure the County’s purchasing software can track key indicators. d. Ensure the County’s purchasing software can accommodate city purchases. e. Identify, in conjunction with the Cities, the goods and services with the highest potential savings. f. Negotiate discounted contracts for those goods and services. g. Distribute and report discounts to the Cities on a consistent basis. APPLICABLE FOLLOW UP RESPONDING AGENCY RESPONSE
R7:
Commit to completing the CFAI accreditation process by December 31, 2019.
R8:
Once accredited, annually budget sufficient funds to cover all costs associated with maintaining accreditation, including staff resources, training, and consultant services. Maintenance of accreditation should be added to the fire chief’s annual performance evaluation. These policies should be formally adopted by the District’s Board by June 30, 2020. Donations
R9:
Adopt a policy not to pursue or accept donations from any private entity over which it exercises any official powers, such as building or plan inspection, or enforcement of any law or regulation. This policy should be adopted by December 31, 2018. District Identity
R10:
Expand its website to include a description of special districts in general and the Menlo Park Fire Protection District in particular by June 30, 2019. APPLICABLE FOLLOW UP RESPONDING AGENCY RESPONSE
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. APPLICABLE FOLLOW UP RESPONDING AGENCY RESPONSE
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The CBOSS PTC project had several management failings as noted by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) report. Among the Caltrain management issues noted by APTA were: No commonly approved project schedule between Caltrain and Parsons Lack of a strong in-house technical team to oversee the project No commonly agreed upon definition of some final deliverables or how to test them Lack of a working escalation method to resolve issues raised between Caltrain and Parsons
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
TECHNOLOGICAL: EFFECTIVENESS OF DESIGN In the view of the panel, animosities between the prime contractor and project management oversight present an impediment to resolving outstanding technical issues. PTG appears to have appropriate technical resources to complete CBOSS requirements for Caltrain running on Caltrain tracks. It is apparent that TASI resources have not been fully engaged during the course of the project. RE
F3:
The CalMod project schedule process appears coordinated and integrated among the main contractors, consultants, and CalMod. The duties of the consulting firm of Gannett Fleming include schedule coordination.
F4:
While membership in the Change Management Board is not completely settled, the board is evaluating and approving changes as they occur.
F5:
CalMod’s Risk Assessment Committee (made up of representatives from funding partners and CalMod management) meets monthly to identify risks and mitigation measures. Progress in mitigating risks enumerated in the Program Risk Register is reviewed at this meeting and on an ongoing basis by the person employed as Risk Management Lead.
F6:
CalMod appears to have an experienced Chief Officer and senior managers in place.
F7:
Quality control and quality assurance processes appear to be functioning as designed.
F8:
Caltrain has adequate management processes in place to implement a project of this scale.
F9:
Most CalMod project information is available to the public, but it is not readily accessible to members of the public who do not know exactly where to look for it. It is difficult for the public to understand if the CalMod project is on budget and schedule without access to easily decipherable summary reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Caltrain should publish an interactive dashboard focusing on overall project schedule, budget, and deliverables that is readily visible on the CalMod homepage (calmod.org). The dashboard should include links to the supporting data in the Monthly Progress Reports and other places. This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2019.
F10:
Transportation agencies such as the Virginia Department of Transportation and LetsGoCT! use interactive project status dashboards to keep the public informed about their large and complex projects and budgets.
F11:
The Monthly Progress Reports delivered to the PCJPB show total current expenditures compared to the overall budget. In particular, they show “Cost this Month” and “Cost to Date.” but do not show a budget timeline of current expenditures to planned expenditures on a monthly basis. Graphs showing draw downs on CalMod’s $315 million contingency fund that are provided to the PCJPB do not include a narrative explanation. Without a variance analysis and narrative, it is difficult for members of the public to understand why a deviation from the budgeted amount occurred.
F12:
The summary information provided to the public regarding scheduling milestones in the body of Monthly Progress Reports is insufficient. The public cannot tell from that summary if CalMod is on schedule when the published milestone chart and the critical path charts in that summary have entries that have gaps as long as two years. The appendix to each Monthly Progress Report does contain more detailed schedule information in the form of a summary Master Program Schedule, but understanding it requires some knowledge of Gantt charts to fully understand the information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
A high-level CalMod project schedule should be published every month showing the progress of the project against the planned timeline. The schedule should have quarterly milestones so that the public can determine if the overall project is on schedule. This schedule should be included in the Executive Summary and Schedule sections of the Monthly Progress Reports. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2018.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
CalMod should publish an explanation of how total project spending is tracked against the planned budget. Spending more or less than budgeted should be explained and a brief explanation of how the budget will be returned to plan (if possible) should be included. This information should be appended to the Monthly Progress Reports. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2018.
R4:
TECHNOLOGICAL: INTEROPERABILITY DESIGN VIABILITY It appears that the current status of software does not support interoperability with tenant and host railroads and that configuration management of the versions of system software control is lacking. It does not appear that interoperability will be included with the October 2016 revenue service demonstration. RE
R5:
TECHNOLOGICAL: EFFECTIVENESS OF DESIGN The logic for the fiber optics design and distribution was well planned and can be leveraged for future revenue. The control center design incorporates state of the art technology, and is well laid out and labeled. The On Board Computer (OBC) has approximately 10,000 lines of code which is considered a small system that promotes maintainability and robustness. However, in reviewing the open software defects list, it appears that at least one of the defects is said to crash the OBC. As noted by the current defect list, there are multiple communication network issues that remain to be resolved. The panel notes that the security layer of the software is an older application that is vulnerable to cryptographic intrusion. RE
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
All 20 of the cities in the County purchase goods and services through decentralized purchasing systems.
F2:
Decentralized purchasing systems successfully allow the Cities to procure goods and services at fair market prices while minimizing labor costs.
F3:
The creation of a centralized purchasing department to provide the organization with advanced procurement services and guidance can be cost prohibitive.
F4:
While city employees receive training on municipal purchasing guidelines and policies, many employees who conduct purchasing operations as a secondary responsibility are not trained or instructed to negotiate optimum prices by leveraging market power.
F5:
City employees who conduct purchasing operations as a secondary responsibility often do not identify commonly purchased goods that other departments also purchase and so miss the opportunity to negotiate lower costs which could be obtained by purchasing the items in bulk for multiple departments.
F6:
Cooperative purchasing practices allow multiple public entities to collaboratively purchase goods and services, thereby gaining economies of scale that they would otherwise not have.
F7:
Cooperative purchasing practices are compatible with decentralized purchasing systems and can allow the Cities to leverage their collective market power, without changing existing purchasing systems. Ibid. 27.
F8:
Adoption of cooperative purchasing practices, including piggyback agreements and cooperative purchasing agreements, can enable all Cities to obtain lower prices on goods and services.
F9:
Each city has limited communications with each other regarding procurement best practices, shared purchasing challenges, and purchasing solutions.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Increase the use of cooperative purchasing practices, including piggyback contracts and joint procurement agreements.
R2:
Share with other Cities and the County Procurement Division their procurement needs in order to identify opportunities for cooperative procurements between the Cities and the County. The 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Mateo do the following by no later than February 1, 2019:
R3:
Increase the use of cooperative purchasing practices, including the development and insertion of piggyback language into County contracts, with the Cities.
R4:
Share with the Cities the County’s procurement needs to identify opportunities for further cooperative purchasing.
F10:
The County of San Mateo’s Procurement Division is the only remaining public centralized purchasing department at the City and County level within San Mateo County.
F11:
Collaboration between the Cities and the Procurement Division through cooperative purchasing practices could achieve significant cost savings for both the Cities and the County.
F12:
The Procurement Division presently lacks the operational capacity to fully collaborate with the Cities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
Relocate the County’s Procurement Division into an appropriate reporting structure, such that the Procurement Division shall report directly to the County Manager. The 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Mateo do the following by no later than July 1, 2019.
R6:
Develop and study a plan to achieve the Checkpoints on the Pathway towards City-County Procurement Cooperation within current plans to improve the Purchasing Division, including: a. Hire experienced buyers. b. Create and distribute to the Cities a register of open contracts. c. Ensure the County’s purchasing software can track key indicators. d. Ensure the County’s purchasing software can accommodate city purchases. e. Identify, in conjunction with the Cities, the goods and services with the highest potential savings. f. Negotiate discounted contracts for those goods and services. g. Distribute and report discounts to the Cities on a consistent basis.
F13:
There are no formal channels for communication between the County and the Cities regarding procurement cooperation opportunities.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 reported combined covered payroll for the City’s pension plans for each of FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A.
F2:
Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 reported combined contribution payments to CalPERS on the City’s pension plans for each of FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A.
F3:
Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 reported combined Unfunded Liabilities (as defined in this report) for the City’s pension plans for each of FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. Each City has been required to make large Amortization Cost (as defined in this report) payments of principal and interest to CalPERS on those Unfunded Liabilities. These payments have diverted money that could otherwise have been used to provide public services or to add to reserves.
F4:
Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 reported combined Funded Percentages (as defined in the prior report) for the City’s pension plans for each of FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A.
F5:
Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016, June 30, 2017, and June 30, 2018 reported what the combined Unfunded Liabilities (as defined in the prior report) for the City’s pension plans for each of FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 would have been if the applicable Discount Rate applied to calculate them had been one percentage point lower in the amount set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A.
F6:
Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016, June 30, 2017, and June 30, 2018 reported general fund total expenditures 650 Woodside, Proposed Budget Fiscal Years 2019-21, Budget Overview, p. 8.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
As of 2015, approximately 50 percent of the county’s third graders were not reading at grade level. For English learners, racial minorities, and economically disadvantaged children, that percentage decreases dramatically.
F2:
Children who are not reading proficiently by third grade have difficulty with later school success and are four times more likely to drop out of high school than peers who maintain grade level achievement.
F3:
The Big Lift is an early learning initiative that incorporates evidence-based teaching approaches and learning strategies called “the four pillars:” (1) high-quality preschool, (2) summer learning, (3) reduction of chronic absenteeism, and (4) family engagement to support learning. These strategies are included in the program throughout its duration.
F4:
The Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council (PPLC), comprised of the County Board of Supervisors, the San Mateo County Office of Education, and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, developed the Big Lift initiative to improve reading proficiency of participating third graders to 80 percent.
F5:
The 2017 BELL assessment showed that grade K-2 who attended Big Lift summer learning programs demonstrated a net gain of up to 3.5 months in pre-reading/reading skills.
F6:
The RAND assessment found that Big Lift preschoolers were significantly more likely than demographically similar children, who went to no preschool at all, to score in the kindergarten-ready range.
F7:
In June 2018, San Mateo County and the Big Lift were recognized by the Learning Policy Institute as a model for the state for their efforts to improve early childhood education. Official from San Mateo County Office of Education: interview by the Grand Jury 68 Official from Silicon Valley Community Foundation: interview by the Grand Jury 69 Official from San Mateo Office of Education: interview by Grand Jury
F8:
The Big Lift is funded by several sources. The County of San Mateo has pledged a total of $20 million in Measure K sales tax monies, $7.5 million has been received from the Social Innovation Fund (along with matching funds from participating school districts), and individuals, corporations and non-profits have donated approximately $2.2 million in other grants. Big Lift funding is now secured through Summer 2018, but another $11.4 million must be raised to support the pilot program to completion in 2020.
F9:
Planning for the continuation of the Big Lift beyond 2020 must begin now. It will take at least two years to extend and expand the program if/when the proof of concept is evidenced.
F10:
San Mateo County stands to benefit from the full completion of the five-year Big Lift pilot program in 2020. METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury reviewed: ● Early childhood education (ECE) studies and articles ● National, state, and local programs for ECE, including Head Start, the Big Lift, Raising a Reader, and First 5 California ● Longitudinal data from standardized achievement tests in San Mateo County school districts, including demographic data across the county ● Reports on challenges facing the county’s South Coast residents ● Evaluation studies of the Big Lift, 2017 ● California CAASPP test results The Grand Jury interviewed: ● Officials from the school districts in Cohorts 1 and 2: superintendents, principals, school board members, and teachers ● San Mateo County Office of Education officials ● Board of Supervisors representatives ● Silicon Valley Community Foundation Big Lift officers ● Raising a Reader representatives ● Community Non-Profit Service program staff representatives BIBLIOGRAPHY Ansell, Susan. “Achievement Gap.” Education Week. August 3, 2004. https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/achievement-gap/index.htm BELL Building Educated Leaders for Life. “The Big Lift Impact Report 2017.” https://static1.squarespace.com/static/553e9c6ee4b0ee77fad23968/t/5a14aba7652dea2e1a98db85 /1511304406156/The+Big+Lift+Impact+Report+2017_FINAL.pdf BELL Building Educated Leaders for Life. “Grade Level Reading.” https://www.experiencebell.org/grade-level-reading BELL Building Educated Leaders for Life. “Measurement.” https://www.experiencebell.org/our- results/measurement The Big Lift website. “Funding.” http://www.thebiglift.org/funding/ - funding-02 (Last accessed, June 26, 2018.) The Big Lift website. “Overview.” http://www.thebiglift.org/overview#overview-02 (Last accessed, June 26, 2018.) The Big Lift website. “Our Plan, Overview.” http://www.thebiglift.org/our-plan#our-plan-01 (Last accessed, June 26, 2018.) The Big Lift website. “Press Release – RAND and BELL studies find the Big Lift children are making promising gains.” http://www.smcoe.org/about-smcoe/news/2017/11/press-release-rand- and-bell-studies-find-the-big-lift-children-are-making-promising-gains.html California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. Report: Test Year 2015. Test Results for English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics: All Students. https://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2017/ViewReport?ps=true&lstTestYear=2015&lstTestType=B&lstG roup=1&lstCounty=41&lstDistrict=00000&lstSchool=0000000 California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. Understanding California Assessment of Student Progress and Performance: CAASPP Summary Reports. https://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2017/UnderstandingCAASPPReports California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) COE Spotlight, 09/19/16 article. “The Big Lift SMCOE.” http://ccsesa.org/the-big-lift-san-mateo-county-office- of-education/ Campaign for Grade Level Reading. “Summer Learning Loss.” http://gradelevelreading.net/our- work/summer-learning-loss. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Baltimore, Maryland. “Double Jeopardy, 2012.” http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-DoubleJeopardy-2012-Full.pdf. Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, Maryland. “Early Warning Confirmed, A Research Update on Third-Grade Reading.” 2013 Erickson, Martha Farrell & Karen Kurz-Riemer. Infants, Toddlers and Families: A Framework for Support and Intervention. New York: The Guilford Press, 1999 Celia J. Gomez, Jill S. Cannon, Anamarie Whitaker, and Lynn A. Karoly, Big Lift Participation and School Entry Indicators: Findings for the 2016–2017 Kindergarten Class. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. 2017. https://www.Rand.org/ pubs/ research_reports/RR2131.html Heckman, James J. “The Economics of Inequality: The Value of Early Childhood Education.” American Educator v35 n1 p31-35. Spring 2011 Hernandez, Donald J., “Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation.” Albany, New York: Annie E. Casey Foundation, April 2011. http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-DoubleJeopardy-2012-Full.pdf HighScope Perry Preschool Study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI, HighScope Press. 2004 Insight. “Self-Sufficiency Standard Tool for California.” https://insightcced.org/tools- metrics/self-sufficiency-standard-tool-for-california/ Robert S. Johnson Foundation. County Health Rankings and Roadmaps. County Health Rankings Report: California. http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/sites/default/files/state/downloads/CHR2018_CA.pdf Sarah Kinahan, Consulting, San Mateo County Childcare and Preschool Needs Assessment, San Mateo County Office of Education, 2017. http://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/learning-and- leadership/child-care-partnership-council/Needs%20Assessment %202017/CCPC_Full_Report_Needs_Assessment_11-17.pdf, Learning Policy Institute, “Building an Early Learning System that Works.” https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/building-early-learning-system-california-brief National Center for Education Statistics. “Achievement Gaps.” https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council, “Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of San Mateo County, 2008” https://www.siliconvalleycf.org/docs/ppcyf/pplc-bill-of-rights.pdf Arthur J. Reynolds. Success in Early Intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2000 Art Rolnick and Rob Grunewald. “Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a High Public Return.” The Region. 2003 https://minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/earlychild/abc-part2.pdf The San Mateo County Partnership Council. 2017 San Mateo Child Care Needs Assessment. http://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/learning-and-leadership/child-care- partnershipcouncil/Needs%20Assessment %202017/CCPC Full_Report_Needs_Assessment_11- 17.pdf School Ratings. California School Ratings: San Mateo County. http://www.school- ratings.com/counties/San_Mateo.html Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Big Lift. Inspiring Summers will help low-income children stay on track in San Mateo County. SVCF (blog). https://www.siliconvalleycf.org/blog/recent-events/big-lift-inspiring-summers-will-help-low- income-children-stay-track, July 21, 2016 Statistical Atlas. “Household Income in San Mateo County California.” https://statisticalatlas.com/county/California/San-Mateo-County/Household-Income U.S. Census Bureau. “State and County QuickFacts. 2016” https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217 U.S. Census Bureau. “Income in the past 12 Months.” 2015 American Community Survey. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk U.S. Department of Education. 2015. “A Matter of Equity, Preschool in America.” https://www2.ed.gov/documents/early-learning/matter-equity-preschool Issued: August 2, 2018 County of San Mateo Inter-Departmental Correspondence Department: COUNTY MANAGER File #: 18-959 Board Meeting Date: 10/23/2018 Special Notice / Hearing: None__ Vote Required: Majority To: Honorable Board of Supervisors From: John L. Maltbie, County Manager Subject: Board of Supervisors’ Response to the 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury Report, “Spotlight: Early Learning Gets A Big Lift.”
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Approve the Board of Supervisors’ response to the 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report, “Spotlight: Early Learning Gets A Big Lift.” BACKGROUND: On August 2, 2018, the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued a report titled “Spotlight: Early Learning Gets A Big Lift.” The Board of Supervisors is required to submit comments on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters over which it has some decision making authority within 90 days. The Board’s response to the report is due to the Honorable V. Raymond Swope no later than October 31, 2018. DISCUSSION: The Grand Jury made ten findings in its report. The Board responses follow each finding and the eight recommendations that the Grand Jury requested that the Board respond to within 90 days. FINDINGS Finding 1: As of 2015, approximately 50 percent of the county’s third graders were not reading at grade level. For English learners, racial minorities, and economically disadvantaged children, that percentage decreases dramatically.
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
Since 1967, exposure to secondhand smoke has killed approximately 2.5 million nonsmokers of all ages in the United States.
F2:
Enforcement officers report that their primary focus when responding to MUH smoking violation complaints is to educate alleged smokers regarding the requirements of the smoking ordinances, and that most alleged smokers report being unfamiliar with the requirements of the ordinance.
F3:
The Belmont, Brisbane, Daly City, Redwood City, San Bruno, and the County of San Mateo MUH smoking ordinances expressly prohibit retaliation against individuals who report a violation; however, the MUH smoking ordinances for Burlingame, Foster City, the City of San Mateo, and South San Francisco do not.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The cities of Burlingame, Foster City, San Mateo, and South San Francisco should amend their MUH smoking ordinances, by no later than December 31, 2018, to prohibit retaliation against individuals who report violations of the MUH smoking ordinances.
F4:
Searches for “smoking” or “smoke” using the website search tool for Burlingame and Daly City81 do not yield any information regarding their MUH smoking ordinances, whereas the search tools for each of the other jurisdictions with MUH smoking ordinances do. (See Website Content Table below, column F4.) 81 City of Burlingame website, accessed June 7, 2018. City of Daly City website, accessed June 7, 2018.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each jurisdiction with an MUH smoking ordinance (Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Redwood City, San Bruno, City of San Mateo, South San Francisco and the County of San Mateo for its unincorporated areas) should improve their educational outreach to residents regarding such ordinances, including at a minimum each of the following, by no later than March 31, 2019: ● Publishing summaries of residents’ rights and obligations under their MUH smoking ordinances, including on their websites ● Publishing information on how to report violations of MUH smoking ordinances, including on their websites ● Informing residents that they can report violations of MUH smoking ordinances anonymously ● Informing residents, including on their websites, that it is unlawful for any landlord or other person to take any retaliatory action against them for having reported a violation of an MUH smoking ordinance ● Ensuring that information about reporting MUH smoking ordinance violations is just as readily accessible on their websites as information about other forms of nuisance ● Ensuring that, upon typing the word “smoking,” or the like in the search features of their websites, users are directed to all information about the jurisdiction’s MUH smoking ordinance and related complaints process
F5:
The websites for Burlingame, Daly City, Redwood City,82 the County of San Mateo, and South San Francisco do not contain summaries of their MUH smoking ordinances. The websites for each of the other jurisdictions with MUH smoking ordinances do. (See Website Content Table below, column
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each jurisdiction with an MUH smoking ordinance (Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Redwood City, San Bruno, City of San Mateo, South San Francisco and the County of San Mateo for its unincorporated areas) should improve their educational outreach to residents regarding such ordinances, including at a minimum each of the following, by no later than March 31, 2019: ● Publishing summaries of residents’ rights and obligations under their MUH smoking ordinances, including on their websites ● Publishing information on how to report violations of MUH smoking ordinances, including on their websites ● Informing residents that they can report violations of MUH smoking ordinances anonymously ● Informing residents, including on their websites, that it is unlawful for any landlord or other person to take any retaliatory action against them for having reported a violation of an MUH smoking ordinance ● Ensuring that information about reporting MUH smoking ordinance violations is just as readily accessible on their websites as information about other forms of nuisance ● Ensuring that, upon typing the word “smoking,” or the like in the search features of their websites, users are directed to all information about the jurisdiction’s MUH smoking ordinance and related complaints process
F6:
The websites for Belmont, Burlingame, Daly City, Redwood City,83 the City of San Mateo, and South San Francisco do not provide specific information on how to make complaints regarding MUH smoking violations. The websites for each of the other jurisdictions with MUH smoking ordinances do. (See Website Content Table below, column F6.)
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Each jurisdiction with an MUH smoking ordinance (Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Redwood City, San Bruno, City of San Mateo, South San Francisco and the County of San Mateo for its unincorporated areas) should improve their educational outreach to residents regarding such ordinances, including at a minimum each of the following, by no later than March 31, 2019: ● Publishing summaries of residents’ rights and obligations under their MUH smoking ordinances, including on their websites ● Publishing information on how to report violations of MUH smoking ordinances, including on their websites ● Informing residents that they can report violations of MUH smoking ordinances anonymously ● Informing residents, including on their websites, that it is unlawful for any landlord or other person to take any retaliatory action against them for having reported a violation of an MUH smoking ordinance ● Ensuring that information about reporting MUH smoking ordinance violations is just as readily accessible on their websites as information about other forms of nuisance ● Ensuring that, upon typing the word “smoking,” or the like in the search features of their websites, users are directed to all information about the jurisdiction’s MUH smoking ordinance and related complaints process
R6:
Each jurisdiction with an MUH smoking ordinance should, by December 31, 2018, conduct a review of current methods used by the public to report MUH smoking violations and possible improvements (including online reporting on their websites and use of mobile phone apps) to ensure ease of reporting.
F7:
The websites for the cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Foster City, Redwood City,84 San Bruno, San Mateo, and South San Francisco, as well as the County’s Health System website (for unincorporated San Mateo County) have links on their home pages that lead to information on how to report specific types of nuisances such as barking dogs, loud parties, abandoned mattresses, and shopping carts. However, these links do not provide information on how to report MUH smoking violations. Burlingame’s website links to Code Compliance from its home page.85 (See Website Content Table below, column F7.)
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Each jurisdiction with an MUH smoking ordinance (Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Redwood City, San Bruno, City of San Mateo, South San Francisco and the County of San Mateo for its unincorporated areas) should improve their educational outreach to residents regarding such ordinances, including at a minimum each of the following, by no later than March 31, 2019: ● Publishing summaries of residents’ rights and obligations under their MUH smoking ordinances, including on their websites ● Publishing information on how to report violations of MUH smoking ordinances, including on their websites ● Informing residents that they can report violations of MUH smoking ordinances anonymously ● Informing residents, including on their websites, that it is unlawful for any landlord or other person to take any retaliatory action against them for having reported a violation of an MUH smoking ordinance ● Ensuring that information about reporting MUH smoking ordinance violations is just as readily accessible on their websites as information about other forms of nuisance ● Ensuring that, upon typing the word “smoking,” or the like in the search features of their websites, users are directed to all information about the jurisdiction’s MUH smoking ordinance and related complaints process
R6:
Each jurisdiction with an MUH smoking ordinance should, by December 31, 2018, conduct a review of current methods used by the public to report MUH smoking violations and possible improvements (including online reporting on their websites and use of mobile phone apps) to ensure ease of reporting.
F8:
The websites for Brisbane, San Bruno, and the County of San Mateo (on the County Health System website) provide information about the TPP or TEC or how to contact them regarding an MUH smoking issue. The websites for the other MUH jurisdictions do not. (See Website Content Table below, column F8.) 82 Redwood City’s smoking ordinance is partially implemented: effective January 1, 2018 for all new units and January 1, 2019 for existing units in MUH properties. Redwood City’s smoking ordinance is partially implemented: effective January 1, 2018 for all new units and January 1, 2019 for existing units in MUH properties. Ibid. 85 < https://www.belmont.gov> < http://brisbaneca.org> < https://www.burlingame.org> < https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov> < https://www.cityofsanmateo.org> Website Content of Jurisdictions with MUH Smoking Ordinances Jurisdiction F4. F5. F6. F7. F8. Search for Provides Provides Provides Provides “Smoke/ summary of information links to TPP/TEC Smoking” smoking on how to report info? yields ordinance? make specific smoking complaints nuisances ordinance about MUH other than information? smoking? smoking? Belmont Yes Yes No Yes No Brisbane Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Burlingame No No No No No Daly City No No No Yes No Foster City Yes Yes Yes Yes No Redwood City86 Yes No No Yes No San Bruno Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes City of San Mateo Yes Yes No Yes No South San Francisco Yes No No Yes No County of San Mateo Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each jurisdiction with an MUH smoking ordinance (Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Redwood City, San Bruno, City of San Mateo, South San Francisco and the County of San Mateo for its unincorporated areas) should improve their educational outreach to residents regarding such ordinances, including at a minimum each of the following, by no later than March 31, 2019: ● Publishing summaries of residents’ rights and obligations under their MUH smoking ordinances, including on their websites ● Publishing information on how to report violations of MUH smoking ordinances, including on their websites ● Informing residents that they can report violations of MUH smoking ordinances anonymously ● Informing residents, including on their websites, that it is unlawful for any landlord or other person to take any retaliatory action against them for having reported a violation of an MUH smoking ordinance ● Ensuring that information about reporting MUH smoking ordinance violations is just as readily accessible on their websites as information about other forms of nuisance ● Ensuring that, upon typing the word “smoking,” or the like in the search features of their websites, users are directed to all information about the jurisdiction’s MUH smoking ordinance and related complaints process
F9:
In all MUH jurisdictions, the issuance of citations for violations of MUH smoking ordinances is limited by the need to (1) observe the violation in progress, (2) see other compelling evidence that a violation had occurred, or (3) have the alleged violator admit to law or code enforcement that he or she had been smoking in violation of the MUH smoking ordinance.
F10:
The towns/cities of Colma, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, and San Carlos do not have smoking ordinances that restrict smoking in their multiunit residences, except in some common areas. Atherton, Hillsborough, and Woodside have no multiunit housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The towns/cities of Colma, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, and San Carlos should, by December 31, 2018, hold public hearings to evaluate issues and hear residents’ views on restricting smoking in multiunit housing in their jurisdictions.
F11:
The MUH smoking ordinances for the cities of Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, and the County of San Mateo for its unincorporated areas do not prohibit smoking medical marijuana in multiunit housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The cities of Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, and the County of San Mateo for its unincorporated areas should amend their MUH smoking ordinances, by no later than December 31, 2018, to prohibit smoking medical marijuana in multiunit housing.
F12:
The TPP web pages do not include the following information: (a) a summary of residents’ rights and obligations under the MUH smoking ordinances in their jurisdictions, (b) links to each jurisdiction’s MUH smoking ordinance, and (c) information on how residents of multiunit housing can report violations of MUH smoking ordinances in their specific jurisdictions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Each jurisdiction with an MUH smoking ordinance (Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Redwood City, San Bruno, City of San Mateo, South San Francisco and the County of San Mateo for its unincorporated areas) should improve their educational outreach to residents regarding such ordinances, including at a minimum each of the following, by no later than March 31, 2019: ● Publishing summaries of residents’ rights and obligations under their MUH smoking ordinances, including on their websites ● Publishing information on how to report violations of MUH smoking ordinances, including on their websites ● Informing residents that they can report violations of MUH smoking ordinances anonymously ● Informing residents, including on their websites, that it is unlawful for any landlord or other person to take any retaliatory action against them for having reported a violation of an MUH smoking ordinance ● Ensuring that information about reporting MUH smoking ordinance violations is just as readily accessible on their websites as information about other forms of nuisance ● Ensuring that, upon typing the word “smoking,” or the like in the search features of their websites, users are directed to all information about the jurisdiction’s MUH smoking ordinance and related complaints process
R8:
TPP and TEC should update their web pages by March 31, 2019, to include the following: ● Links to MUH jurisdictions’ smoking ordinances and their summaries/FAQs ● Information on how to report violations of MUH smoking ordinances in each applicable jurisdiction
F13:
TPP reported limited success in obtaining MUH smoking complaints data from jurisdictions, making it difficult to assess the efficacy of MUH ordinances and develop trend information. Redwood City’s smoking ordinance is partially implemented: effective January 1, 2018 for all new units and January 1, 2019 for existing units in MUH properties.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Each jurisdiction with an MUH smoking ordinance (Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Redwood City, San Bruno, City of San Mateo, South San Francisco, and the County of San Mateo for its unincorporated areas) should, by June 30, 2019, evaluate ways to improve its collection and retrieval of complaints of MUH smoking violations so that: ● Information regarding each complaint of an MUH smoking ordinance violation, and the response to it (complaints data) is recorded in a searchable electronic database ● The jurisdiction can evaluate trends in the complaints data and the efficacy of the MUH smoking ordinance
R5:
Each jurisdiction with an MUH smoking ordinance should, by December 31, 2018, make their complaints data (with names of alleged violators deleted) available to the TPP and TEC on at least an annual basis.
F14:
The funding allocation from the California Department of Public Health’s Tobacco Control Program for TPP increased from $150,000 in FY 2016-2017 to $784,000 in FY-2017-2018.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
As of June 30, 2017, SamCERA’s Funded Ratio (Total Plan Assets/Total Plan Liabilities) was 84.3 percent. By comparison, the average Funded Ratio of cities in San Mateo County was 70.5 percent and the average of CalPERS agencies statewide was just 68 percent.
F2:
As of June 30, 2017, SamCERA had a significant system-wide Unfunded Liability of $743 million, while the County portion constituted a significant Unfunded Liability of $707.1 million.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to implement its MOU with SamCERA to eliminate its Unfunded Liability by the end of FY 2022-2023, provided that actuarial assumptions are met.
F3:
In FY 2016-2017, the County’s Normal Cost payments to SamCERA were $51 million, while its payments to SamCERA of principal and interest on the Unfunded Liability (“Amortization Cost”) came to $108 million. In addition, the County made supplemental payments to SamCERA of nearly $34 million to pay down the Unfunded Liability. The County’s total payments of $192 million represented about 18 percent of total General Fund spending and 39 percent of its total covered payroll costs in FY 2016-2017.
F4:
The County’s payment of Amortization Cost diverts money that could otherwise be used to pay for public services that it provides.
F5:
In 2013, the County approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SamCERA that would result in the County eliminating its Unfunded Liability by FY 2022-2023, if actuarial assumptions are met. The County’s participation is not mandatory, but it has implemented the MOU on schedule. Currently, SamCERA projects that the County will eliminate its Unfunded Liability on schedule.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors continue to implement its MOU with SamCERA to eliminate its Unfunded Liability by the end of FY 2022-2023, provided that actuarial assumptions are met.
F6:
The MOU provides that the County will make annual supplemental contributions totaling $140 million over the 10-year term of the MOU to pay down its Unfunded Liability. Further, the County will maintain a high payroll contribution rate (later determined to be 37.4 percent), even as Annual Required Contributions (ARC) are expected to fall, as the Unfunded Liability declines. Maintaining a contribution rate that is higher than needed to pay the ARC generates additional supplemental contributions.
F7:
The MOU provides that SamCERA will place supplemental contributions from the County into a Supplemental Contributions Account, such that the funds apply to the benefit of the County’s plan, rather than the SamCERA system as a whole.
F8:
The County anticipates savings of over $304 million in interest expense as a result of paying down its Unfunded Liability ahead of the schedule provided in the Amortization Period. The County further anticipates that, once the Unfunded Liability is paid off, it will save up to $100 million per year in Amortization Costs and supplemental contributions. However, if the County commits these expected savings to other budgetary purposes, it will be more difficult for the County to meet Unfunded Liabilities in future years, if SamCERA’s current actuarial assumptions prove to be too optimistic.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Due to uncertainties regarding future pension liabilities, especially returns on investments, the Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors, in budgeting for years beyond FY 2022-2023, ensure that the anticipated savings that accrue from eliminating the need to pay down an Unfunded Liability are not irrevocably committed to other budgetary purposes, such as operational or other ongoing expenses.
F9:
In 2003 and 2005, the County adopted enhanced pension benefit formulas that were applied retroactively to all employees. Since neither the County nor its employees had made Normal Cost contributions to pay for the enhanced benefits, the County’s Unfunded Liability immediately increased. In 2011, the County reversed its previous action and returned to the original benefit formula. However, this only applied to new hires. In 2013, SamCERA implemented new reduced pension formulas required under the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act.
F10:
Since 2014, the County has eliminated its prior practice of paying a portion of the employees’ share of Normal Cost, known as the “employer pickup.”
F11:
Since 2014, the County has changed its prior practice of paying the entire cost of annual COLA increases for retirees. It now requires that all employees pay 50 percent of the future cost of this benefit as part of their payroll deduction for Normal Costs.
F12:
During the FY 2007-2017 period, the County kept salary increases to an average annual rate of 2.87 percent, well below the rates of increase assumed by SamCERA. This resulted in a cumulative reduction in Unfunded Liability of $154.7 million. However, in the most recent years within the period, FY 2014-2017, the trend showed an increase in Unfunded Liability attributable to salary increases that exceeded SamCERA’s assumptions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors keep overall salary increases at or below the actuarial rates assumed by SamCERA.
F13:
In 2010, the County had 5,327 current employee members of SamCERA. By 2013, this had declined to 4,650 current members before rising back up to 5,080 in 2017.
F14:
SamCERA uses a 15-year layered Amortization Period to determine payments on the Unfunded Liability. That is a shorter period than used by some other pension systems, such as CalPERS. It results in higher employer contributions during the Amortization Period but will ultimately reduce the total interest expense.
F15:
SamCERA conducts Triennial Experience Studies to monitor its demographic actuarial assumptions, including member life-expectancy. Economic assumptions, including the assumed Return on Investment of its plan assets are reviewed annually.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the SamCERA Board of Retirement continue to conduct Triennial Experience Studies to address potential demographic changes and continue to conduct annual economic analyses to assess its economic assumptions, including Return on Investment.
F16:
Based on its latest Triennial Experience Study in 2017, SamCERA has made a change in the mortality assumption that predicts how long members are currently living and adds a projection scale that reflects the gradual year-to-year improvement in mortality that is expected to occur in the future. The new mortality assumption results in a significant increase of Normal Cost contributions equal to 2.19 percent of payroll.
F17:
SamCERA has lowered its assumed Return on Investment (ROI) on plan assets in a series of steps since 2005. The assumed ROI for FY 2017-18 is 6.75 percent. That is more conservative than most other public pension systems, such as CalPERS, which is currently at 7.5 percent. (The CalPERS Board has since approved lowering the ROI in steps to 7.0 percent by FY 2020-2021).
F18:
Historically, ROI is the biggest source of funding for SamCERA’s pension benefits, comprising approximately 57 percent of total revenues. Contributions by the County provided 29 percent and contributions by employees provided 14 percent of total revenues. As assumed ROI is lowered, Normal Cost increases, so contributions by the County and employees must be increased.
F19:
SamCERA has changed its allocation of assets in different types of investments over time. It has gradually reduced the share of investments in public equities (public stocks) to just 43 percent (as of June 30, 2017) and has diversified its portfolio by increasing the share invested in other asset categories.
F20:
An independent 2018 analysis by Roeder Financial ranks SamCERA third best among California pension plans, based on “funding assumptions.” Since the only plans ranked higher than SamCERA were the CalPERS – Legislative (closed) and CalPERS Judges System II, 1, 3 plans, SamCERA has the highest ranking among its peer public pension plans for public agencies.
F21:
ROI can be estimated but not guaranteed. Financial markets have proven to be highly volatile. This makes long-term financial planning difficult.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
The District has operated without a multiyear strategic plan since 2010.
F2:
The District’s Board of Directors established and authorized a Strategic Planning Committee in 2011. However, during the subsequent six-year period, 2012-2017, the committee met only sporadically and failed to submit a strategic plan to the Board.
F3:
The District's deployment system meets the District's current demands but is becoming strained, especially east of Highway 101.
F4:
The District’s Board, despite repeated attempts, has not taken necessary steps to create a strategic plan since 2009.
F5:
The District would benefit from developing a strategic plan and the associated financial analysis that would demonstrate whether or not future property tax revenues will be sufficient to fund the increasing needs of the District resulting from serving the new developments in the District. Property Acquisitions
F6:
The Citygate report, commissioned and accepted by the Board in February 2017, recommended searching for an acceptable parcel to relocate Station 3 before making a final decision regarding the best location for Station 3 and 5.
F7:
Notwithstanding the Citygate recommendation to move Station 3, the District purchased the residence adjacent to Station 3 in Atherton reportedly to eventually expand the station.
F8:
In February 2017 the Board directed the fire chief to use data from the Citygate report to create an updated fire station location and land acquisition plan encompassing the entire District. As of the date of this report, no such plan has been presented to the Board. Letter from Atherton Mayor Mike Lempres to Menlo Park Fire Protection President Peter Carpenter, April 5, 2017. http://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2491 142 Menlo Park Fire Protection District Correspondence to City of Menlo Park Planning Commission Members, General Plan Updated and EIR/FIA Comments, October 19, 2016, 152-158. https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/12320/G1---Connect-Menlo-General-Plan 143 Kevin Kelly,” Menlo Park Fire District to Seek Impact Fees from Developers, not Cities,” The Mercury News, May 19, 2017. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/19/menlo-park-fire-district-to-seek-impact-fees-from-developers-not- cities/. 144 “May 16, 2017 Board Meeting,” You Tube video, 1:35:05, Posted by Menlo Park Fire Protection District, published on May 17, 2017. Begin viewing at time stamp 1:36:51. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jHDq8_JeDI&t=7428s 145 California Special Districts Association, “Special District Reserve Guidelines,” 2013, 9. http://www.californiacityfinance.com/2013_csda_reserve_guidelines_special%20districts.pdf -24-
F9:
From October 2017 to March 2018, the District spent $21.9 million to purchase five separate properties without a comprehensive District-wide land acquisition and station location plan or review by the Strategic Planning Committee. Impact Fees
F10:
Developments planned and approved for the area east of Highway 101 in Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and in unincorporated County areas, will substantially affect District operations, requiring additional personnel, facilities, and equipment to meet increasing demands for service.
F11:
Approved and planned development in Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and unincorporated County areas will have negative impacts on District operational performance as attendant congestion lengthens response time to emergencies.
F12:
In the absence of a strategic plan, associated financial analysis, and land acquisition plan, the District has not demonstrated to the constituent jurisdictions of Atherton, Menlo Park, Redwood City, and the County of San Mateo that the District’s financial resources will be inadequate to address the anticipated demand for District services. As a result, the District was unable to persuade constituent jurisdictions to adopt impact fees on new residential and commercial developments to fund District operations. Donations
F13:
The District has solicited and received donations of cash from Facebook.
F14:
By accepting donations from Facebook, which is subject to inspection and regulation by District personnel, the District has created the possible appearance of favorable treatment or disparate application of rules and laws.
F15:
The District exercises code enforcement powers and reviews the construction plans of businesses located within its boundaries. Accepting donations of cash and services from these businesses can create the appearance of favorable treatment or disparate application of rules and laws. Accreditation
F16:
The District acknowledged the value of accreditation in 2011 and set its attainment as a goal every year since. However, it has not progressed beyond the first phase of the accreditation process since 2011.
F17:
The District’s management and governance structure has not demonstrated the ability to balance competing ongoing emergency response responsibilities with administrative and planning functions. This has been an impediment to completing a strategic plan and achieving accreditation. District Identity
F18:
The title “Menlo Park Fire Protection District” could lead some residents to conclude erroneously that the fire agency is a function of Menlo Park City government and is under the direction and control of the city.
F19:
The District website does not contain a description of its status as an independent Special District, or its structure of governance as an independent Special District under California law. -25-
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Develop a strategic plan that conforms to the standards set by the Center for Public Safety Excellence by June 30, 2019.
R2:
Prepare an updated fire station location and land acquisition plan encompassing the entire District by June 30, 2019.
R3:
Ensure its administrative functions operate effectively regardless of competing short-term priorities caused by emergency response operations, including the establishment of an ongoing management process to track progress and results of agency goals and objectives relating to general organizational and operational programs. The District board should take these actions by June 30, 2019. Property Acquisitions
R4:
Review the consultant recommendations relative to the location of Station 3 and re-examine the basis for purchasing the Atherton property by June 30, 2019. Impact Fees
R5:
Initiate dialogue with local government partners (Atherton, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and the County of San Mateo) to evaluate if impact fees on new development are necessary to adequately fund District operations in future years by December 31, 2018.
R6:
If impact fees are determined to be necessary to fund District operations in future years, the District should initiate an effort to satisfy local government requirements, such as an independent analysis of the District’s fiscal condition, to implement an impact fee program by December 31, 2019. Accreditation
R7:
Commit to completing the CFAI accreditation process by December 31, 2019.
R8:
Once accredited, annually budget sufficient funds to cover all costs associated with maintaining accreditation, including staff resources, training, and consultant services. Maintenance of accreditation should be added to the fire chief’s annual performance evaluation. These policies should be formally adopted by the District’s Board by June 30, 2020. Donations
R9:
Adopt a policy not to pursue or accept donations from any private entity over which it exercises any official powers, such as building or plan inspection, or enforcement of any law or regulation. This policy should be adopted by December 31, 2018. District Identity
R10:
Expand its website to include a description of special districts in general and the Menlo Park Fire Protection District in particular by June 30, 2019. -26-
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
One reason behind wanting to change the composition of the Board appears to stem from the public’s concern over rate increases and service changes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Disseminate more information to the public about SBWMA’s operations, the role of its franchisees, and the rate setting process.
F2:
The organizational structure of SBWMA is a complex issue that the public does not well understand.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Request that Recology prepare a detailed billing statement for its customers that shows all charges imposed by Recology and itemizes all fees charged by the Member Agency.
F3:
The rates and the process of setting them are difficult to understand because so many variables, such as added city fees, come into play.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Continue to appoint only senior management staff to the Board as stipulated in the 2005 Agreement.
F4:
Customers would benefit from receiving itemized billing statements that show charges imposed by Recology and additional fees imposed by the relevant Member Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
If the Restated Agreement is amended to provide for a Board composed solely of elected officials, then put in place a technical advisory committee consisting of staff with technical experience in waste management. The Grand Jury recommends that the SBWMA Board do the following:
F5:
Elected officials already have sufficient influence in the decision-making process because the governing body of each Member Agency must approve major decisions such as contracts and rate increases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the SBWMA Board do the following:
Disseminate more information to the public about SBWMA’s operations, the role of its franchisees, and the rate setting process through a variety of media.
F6:
There is no demonstrable advantage to changing the Board composition from only senior management staff to only elected officials.
F7:
A technical advisory committee would be useful to a Board composed solely of elected officials if the Restated Agreement is amended to change SBWMA’s governance structure in this manner. 7 http://archives.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=1770056 (May 13, 2013). Interview with Task Force member. 9