Santa Clara County Grand Jury

2012-2013

17 reports

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: CABs shift large, compounding interests costs to future taxpayers and will inevitably compound the burdens school districts face in operating effective schools for their students in the future. District Response to Finding 1 Each school district in Santa Clara County should adopt a Board policy and any administrative regulation indicating its intent to comply with any moratorium called for by the State Treasurer and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: We agree that caution should be used in issuing any bonds for the fiscal safety of the district and the community. Issuance of any bonds must be approved by the Board of Trustees and must be fully compliant with state and federal law, and regulations, Board Policy and negotiated employee contracts. Luther Burbank has not issued any bonds during the time frame of the proposed moratorium, and will now proceed to update board policy and administrative regulations to reflect the passing of Assembly Bill 182. On October 2, 2013 the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill 182 ("AB 182"). AB 182 requires that the total debt payments for each bond series be limited to no more than four times the principal amount. Further, capital appreciation bonds ("CABs") are limited to a maximum term of 25 years. CABs that mature more than 10 years after their date of issuance must be subject to refinancing on the 10th anniversary of the date the bond was issued or earlier. AB 182 also requires that if the proposed bond sale includes CABs, school board members must be presented with specific information about the total overall cost of the bonds, a comparison to the overall cost of current interest bonds, and the reasoning that CABs are recommended. The school board's resolution authorizing the sale of the CABs must include the financing terms, maturity dates, repayment ratio and estimated change in the assessed value of taxable property within the district. School boards must also make certain findings with respect to current interest bonds with maturities greater than 30 years. Sincerely, Jan Kaay Jan Kaay Superintendent Luther Burbank School District 408 295-2450 x236 Board of Trustees Lorraine Garza • Guadalupe Reyes • Adriana Rios • Ramiro Sandoval • Christopher Tringali 4 Wabash Avenue • San Jose, California 95128-1931 District (408) 295-2450 • School (408) 295-1814 • Fax (408) 295-3168
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: CABs shift large, compounding interest costs to future taxpayers and will inevitably compound the burdens school districts face in operating effective schools for their students in the future. We, the Mt. Pleasant School Board of Trustees agree with the findings of the Grand Jury regarding CAB bonds compounding interest creating a burden to school districts and its community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Each school district in Santa Clara County should adopt a Board policy and any necessary administrative regulation indicating is intent to comply with he moratorium called for by the State Treasurer and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction The district passed a 25 million bond during the November 2012 election. In May of 2013, the district financed 12 million in current interest bonds in compliance with the General Obligations bonds as adopted by Mt. Pleasant School Board. The district will abide by the laws of the legislature when it finances the remaining part of the bond. Administrative Office 3434 Marten Avenue, San Jose CA 95148 Phone (408) 223-3710 Fax (408) 223-3715
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: CABs shift large, compounding interest costs to future taxpayers and will inevitably compound the burdens school districts face in operating effective schools for their students in the future. Orchard Elementary School District agrees that every school district in the state should impose a moratorium on issuing CABs. The moratorium should remain in effect until the Governor and Legislature decide on reforms in the current legislative session. If reforms are enacted, subsequent CABs deals can be conducted in compliance with the new statutory requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Each school district in Santa Clara County should adopt a board policy and any necessary administrative regulation indicating its intent to comply with the moratorium called for by the State Treasurer and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Orchard School District agrees and will adopt administrative regulations by February 2014 indicating its intent to comply with the moratorium called for by the State Treasurer and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction against the issuance of Capital Appreciation Bonds.
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: CABs shift large, compounding interest costs to future taxpayers and will inevitably compound the burdens school districts face in operating effective schools for their students in the future. The statement that CABs "will inevitably compound the burdens school districts face in operating effective schools for their students in the future" isn't accurate. Why? There are many bond programs that have judiciously used CABs to the benefit of students, taxpayers, and future generations. The District understands that the use of CABs by some school districts has raised a number of legitimate issues, but examples of misuse by some districts should not restrict use for all districts. Used responsibly, CABs can be an effective tool as a portion of an overall debt financing plan. A key point worth noting, the attached Final Report uses the home mortgage comparison, which we think is fair. Just as a homeowner wouldn't judge the cost of his or her mortgage by how much he or she is paying in interest relative to principal on the first mortgage payment (which on a 5% loan is nearly 4:1 and on a 6% loan is over 5:1) but rather the homeowner would look at the interest rate and the total cost of borrowing over 30 years. School districts and taxpayers should also look at the interest rate and the total cost of borrowing, not just "cherry pick" the one or two years of CABs. Otherwise, we are no different than the homeowner who feels they have a costly mortgage when only looking at the first mortgage payment. Response to Grand Jury - CABs August 27, 2013 Pg 2.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Each school district in Santa Clara County should adopt a Board policy and any necessary administrative regulation indicating its intent to comply with the moratorium called for by the State Treasurer and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. While there is merit in establishing controls to eliminate the egregious examples of CABs as well as control the "bad actors" that sell them, adopting a board policy or administrative regulation at this time would be premature. The Legislature is currently reviewing several bills related to school district debt financing and in particular CABs. Following passage of new legislation, the District would revise its board policy and administrative regulations to comply with the new laws. incerely. Donald C. Moody President Board of Trustees Cc: Steve Betando, Interim Superintendent
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: cleaned and serviced to avoid health hazards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County should evaluate methods to determine if Trucks are using commissaries daily. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding and has been implementing the recommendation. All mobile food Trucks must be cleaned and serviced in approved commissaries to avoid violations, per California Health & Safety Code. The County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health has been evaluating strategies to determine the best method for ensuring the daily use of commissaries by mobile Trucks, and regularly discusses this issue with other environmental health jurisdictions to identify successful strategies for confirming compliance with these Statewide regulations. Unannounced late afternoon inspections at commissaries have commenced and early morning inspections may also be conducted as necessary, as these are the best times to verify the mobile Trucks' use of their designated commissary. Official Inspection Reports do not identify the commissary associated with
F3: Truck parks overnight.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The County should continue to explore tracking technologies such as GPS for Trucks, to ensure they are parking at a commissary or another approved facility overnight. The respondent does not agree with the finding. The recommendation will Response: not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each permitted mobile food Truck is required to post the commissary's physical address on the side of the Truck. This is the same address where the Truck is required to park overnight. Effective September 1, 2012, each Truck is required to submit a "Commissary Agreement/Approved Facility" form annually. The Department now has a record of the most current commissary information for all Trucks that have renewed their permit subsequent to September 2012. The submission of this form is required for all permit renewals and for the issuance of new permits, and it is verified with the commissary operator and Department inspection staff familiar with the named commissary prior to issuance of an annual operating permit. Therefore, the Department believes there already are adequate safeguards to ensure overnight parking at a commissary or other approved facility. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian, Cindy Chavez County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
F4: It can be difficult for CPD inspectors to locate a Truck in the field for random inspections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The County should continue to explore tracking technologies such as GPS for Trucks to enhance CPD's ability to conduct random inspections. Response: The respondent partially agrees with the finding. The recommendation requires further analysis. Many mobile food Trucks now post their schedules on social media sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Roaming Hunger), which are monitored by the Department, and this information is used to locate them for random, unannounced inspections. For Trucks with regular sales routes, the route information is now gathered annually, as part of the permit renewal process. For Trucks that do not have regular routes or post on social media, the Department asks for (and documents) the places/events the operator plans to go to during the course of a year to sell food. The Department is looking for ways to efficiently and effectively store this information in its database and keep the information current. The Department obtains as much information as possible from operators during the permit issuance and annual permit renewal inspections, and is communicating regularly with other agencies to identify alternative strategies for locating Trucks in the field for random inspections. Other options currently being explored by the Department include requirements by Truck operators to more frequently notify the Department of the scheduled operating location of the Truck, or utilizing GPS technologies to provide the operating location of the Truck. Knowing the Truck's location is necessary in order to perform unannounced inspections during periods of food preparation. Conducting unannounced inspections of Trucks is consistent with the Department's inspection practice with fixed restaurants. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian, Cindy Chavez County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: The County should ensure that an OIR includes the commissary identification so that violations that could potentially implicate the commissary can be identified. The respondent partially agrees with the finding. The recommendation Response: will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Official Inspection Report (OIR) does not clearly identify the name of the commissary associated with the mobile Truck, but it does identify the commissary's address, because this address is considered the Truck's site address. Additionally, the commissary's address is required to be clearly labeled on the side of the permitted Truck. The commissary information is also maintained in the permit holder's file and recorded in the Department's database. The address posted on the side of the mobile Truck is its required location for overnight parking. Therefore, the Department believes that the OIR adequately identifies the commissary associated with each Truck. The Consumer Protection Division has no record of where a particular
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Not all County Department of Agriculture CFM inspectors report the steps taken to correct the violations listed on the official Inspection Reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: All County Department of Agriculture CFM inspectors should include the steps taken to correct violations on all of the Santa Clara County Farmers' Market Inspection Reports. Response: Agree in concept, but the recommendation requires further analysis. Inspecting biologists can be trained and instructed to always include ٠ steps taken to correct each violation found that can be corrected immediately during the inspection. For violations that cannot be corrected immediately during the inspection, implementation of this recommendation is subject to factors outside the County's control and to budgetary constraints. Some violations, such as confirming that products not listed on the table may not receive any subsequent information. Therefore, we may never know whether the violation was a minor paperwork mistake or a major violation of buying and reselling. We could include "forwarded to Origin County" on our inspection reports to indicate the final step that we can take toward correction of this particular type of violation. Some violations would be best handled with a re-inspection to 0 ensure that compliance has been achieved, and the inspector could then note this step taken and the end result. This is currently not taking place, however, because of budgetary constraints. The number of CFMs in Santa Clara County has increased from 13 in 1994 to 41 in 2013, increasing the number of inspections we must perform. We currently inspect each market once per every six months of operation as mandated by the State. In addition, many CFMs occur on nights and on weekends, which require overtime compensation to inspect. There is a cap of $60 per hour in State regulations that we can charge for market inspections or any subsequent re-inspections needed to follow up on market violations. At $60 per hour, the current program is not cost recovery for us and requires allocation of General Fund dollars to support it. Each additional market inspection would increase expenditures of the General Fund and therefore would be subject to budgetary constraints and the needs of competing programs. The County Department of Agriculture Farmers' Market Inspection
F2: Reports are not posted online at the County website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The County's Department of Agriculture should post all Farmers' Market Inspection Reports online for easy customer review. Agree in concept, but the recommendation requires further analysis. Response: As explained above, the County of Santa Clara Farmers' Market program already is not cost recovery and requires subsidization by the General Fund. Posting will take additional time that we cannot invoice for. Adding and maintaining a copy of each inspection report on our website would add additional costs to a program that is already underfunded. Our inspections do not address immediate health issues, pesticide residue or food safety and therefore may not warrant the expense and time involved in posting. The Department of Agriculture has never received a request for inspection reports until this Grand Jury's inquiry. Based on this history, we believe that public interest in our market inspections would be very small and would not warrant the extra expenditures to list and maintain reports online. Instead, we suggest noting on our website that anyone interested in receiving any Market Inspection Reports should contact our office. If requests are high, then perhaps posting of all reports would be warranted and we could seek an increase in our General Fund allocation in order to achieve report posting online. The majority of Farmer's Market shoppers do not understand the ٠ definition of a "Certified Farmer's Market" or the regulations that we enforce. Posting of each CFM inspection report may cause more confusion and potential damage to those involved (producers & Market Managers). One bad producer could potentially deter customers from many thoroughly compliant vendors. The Market Manager is onsite at each market event and is the 0 one, by regulation, who is primarily responsible for market and vendor compliance. If Market Manger is poor, customers may be deterred from compliant vendors Posting would be beneficial to the public when identifying a more • egregious violator such as those selling as organic when they are not. This, however, is a rare occurrence statewide. We do often come across properly registered and certified organic growers that fail to have the required certification present at the market. o Note: One factual error that was missed upon first review of the Grand Jury report was this statement on the top of that: "[one of the most common problems found is] selling products as organic when the products are not certified as organic". It should correctly be stated as "[one of the most common problems is] selling products as organic without having organic certification on site." This is significant to note as these vendors are actually certified organic but typically a substitute employee has forgotten or misplaced their certificate, so the violation we commonly see is documentary rather than substantive. We create a monthly spreadsheet lists violations found at all markets inspected. We could post this list each month if warranted. .
F3: All County Department of Environmental Health Specialists do not include the steps taken to correct violations on all of the Official Inspection Reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: All County Department of Environmental Health Specialist should include the steps taken to correct violations on all the Official Inspection Reports. Agree with the finding, and the recommendation has been implemented. Response: On July 23, 2013, the Department of Environmental Health provided training to all Environmental Health Specialists on the proper method of report writing, which is to include documenting the steps which were or must be taken to correct each violation on the Official Inspection Report.
F4: The County's Department of Environmental Health does not report the Environmental Health Specialist finding that lead to the violations cited on the Official Inspection Reports. All County Department of Environmental Health Specialists should
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: include the findings that lead to the violations cited on the Official Inspection Report. Agree with the finding, and the recommendation has been implemented. Response: On July 23, 2013, the Department of Environmental Health provided training to all Environmental Health Specialists on the proper method of report writing, which is to include the findings (observations) that are responsible for each violation cited on the Official Inspection Report. . * 1 e . . .
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: The interior of the doors in the individual housing units are covered with graffiti and gang tagging. Probation's Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County should explore and test methods to eliminate graffiti and gang tagging in Juvenile Hall. Probation's Response: The Probation Department has consulted with the County Facilities and Fleets (FAF) Department to ascertain if there are methods or strategies that exist to ameliorate the problem tagging. FAF has agreed to work with Probation to test in one unit a process of stripping down the doors to the stainless steel in an effort to learn if the stainless steel finish will camouflage future tagging. Further, FAF has also begun to assist the Probation Department's Juvenile Hall Beautification Project by painting each housing unit, including the doors. One unit has been completed to date and a second unit is currently in the process of being painted. . Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Findings & Recommendations 13 findings
F1: Averaged over the past five years, the City of Gilroy has the second highest IDR rate in the county at 43%.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: Does CalPERS administer your pension funds for safety (police & fire) and non- safety employees? If not, please identify and describe how your pension plan is being administered.
R1a: The City of Gilroy should identify what factors influence its IDR rate.
R1b: The City of Gilroy should implement a plan to lower its IDR rate.
F2: The City of Morgan Hill did not provide the Grand Jury the number of police department service and disability retirements for the past 5 years.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2: Does CalPERS also administer your retirement-with-disability funds? If not, please identify and describe how your retirement-with-disability plan is being administered.
R2a: The City of Morgan Hill should obtain its police department retirement records and determine its IDR rate for the past 5 years.
R2b: The City of Morgan Hill should continue to retain its police department retirement records.
R2c: The City of Morgan Hill should compare its IDR rate to the IDR rates of the other police department-only entities in the county, as provided in this report.
F3: Averaged over the past five years, the City of Palo Alto has the highest IDR rate in the county at 51%. 15
Related Recommendations (3)
R3: Does your city/county have final approval authority for retirement-with-disability status for your safety and non-safety employees?
R3a: The City of Palo Alto should identify what factors other than its high percentage of firefighters influence its IDR rate.
R3b: The City of Palo Alto should implement a plan to lower its IDR rate.
F4: Can an employee with a non-job-related disability be approved for retirement- with-disability? If so, out of the total number of retirements, how many non-job- related retirements-with-disability were approved for the each of the past five fiscal years? a. For safety employees b. For non-safety employees
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Can an employee with a non-job-related disability be approved for retirement- with-disability? If so, out of the total number of retirements, how many non-job- related retirements-with-disability were approved for the each of the past five fiscal years? a. For safety employees b. For non-safety employees
F5: Out of the total number of retirements, how many job-related retirements-with- disability were approved for each of the past five fiscal years? a. For safety employees b. For non-safety employees
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Out of the total number of retirements, how many job-related retirements-with- disability were approved for each of the past five fiscal years? a. For safety employees b. For non-safety employees
F6: What are the active employee (i.e., pre-retirement) Workers Compensation disability rates (claims per 100 employees) for each of the past five fiscal years? a. For safety employees b. For non-safety employees
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: What are the active employee (i.e., pre-retirement) Workers Compensation disability rates (claims per 100 employees) for each of the past five fiscal years? a. For safety employees b. For non-safety employees
F7: Is there a process in place for providing modified-duty accommodations to active (i.e., pre-retirement) safety and non-safety employees who become disabled? If so, please describe that process and include the average number of such positions made available for each of the past five fiscal years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: Is there a process in place for providing modified-duty accommodations to active (i.e., pre-retirement) safety and non-safety employees who become disabled? If so, please describe that process and include the average number of such positions made available for each of the past five fiscal years.
F8: Is there a time limit for applying for disability status post-retirement? If so, what are the time limits for safety and non-safety retirees? 17 Appendix A - continued
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: Is there a time limit for applying for disability status post-retirement? If so, what are the time limits for safety and non-safety retirees? 17
F9: Describe in detail the retirement-with-disability application and review process for your safety and non-safety employees, highlighting any process differences between safety and non-safety employees. a. If a retirement review board or forum is part of the process, please describe its composition (i.e., membership) and the member terms. If there are separate review boards for safety and non-safety employees, please describe the composition of each. b. How many medical practitioners must approve a retirement-with-disability application? i. How are the medical practitioners chosen and, if applicable, how long is their term of service? ii. Are the medical practitioners specialists in the area of the disability that is claimed? iii. Are the medical practitioners city/county employees or private medical practitioners? c. Out of the total number of applications for retirement-with-disability reviewed by medical practitioners, how many safety and non-safety employee applications were approved by the medical practitioner for each of the past five fiscal years? d. Out of the total number of applications for retirement-with-disability reviewed by the safety employee review board, how many were approved for safety employees for each of the past five fiscal years? Please provide the same numbers for the non-safety employees. e. Is there an appeal process for those who disagree with the review board’s decision? i. If so, for each of the past five fiscal years, how many decisions were appealed and what were their outcomes?
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: Describe in detail the retirement-with-disability application and review process for your safety and non-safety employees, highlighting any process differences between safety and non-safety employees. a. If a retirement review board or forum is part of the process, please describe its composition (i.e., membership) and the member terms. If there are separate review boards for safety and non-safety employees, please describe the composition of each. b. How many medical practitioners must approve a retirement-with-disability application? i. How are the medical practitioners chosen and, if applicable, how long is their term of service? ii. Are the medical practitioners specialists in the area of the disability that is claimed? iii. Are the medical practitioners city/county employees or private medical practitioners? c. Out of the total number of applications for retirement-with-disability reviewed by medical practitioners, how many safety and non-safety employee applications were approved by the medical practitioner for each of the past five fiscal years? d. Out of the total number of applications for retirement-with-disability reviewed by the safety employee review board, how many were approved for safety employees for each of the past five fiscal years? Please provide the same numbers for the non-safety employees. e. Is there an appeal process for those who disagree with the review board’s decision? i. If so, for each of the past five fiscal years, how many decisions were appealed and what were their outcomes?
F10: If an employee retires with a disability, is his/her gross monthly retirement income different or the same as his/her non-disability retirement income? If different, how is the difference determined?
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: If an employee retires with a disability, is his/her gross monthly retirement income different or the same as his/her non-disability retirement income? If different, how is the difference determined?
F11: When your city/county makes changes to the retirement-with-disability process or criteria, are unions involved in negotiating and approving these changes? If so, describe the nature of that involvement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: When your city/county makes changes to the retirement-with-disability process or criteria, are unions involved in negotiating and approving these changes? If so, describe the nature of that involvement.
F12: How does your retirement with disability approval criteria compare with the Workers Compensation disability criteria?
Related Recommendations (1)
R12: How does your retirement with disability approval criteria compare with the Workers Compensation disability criteria?
F13: Describe programs, both voluntary and mandatory, that your city/county uses to promote employee wellness and/or injury prevention for safety employees. Appendix B: Referenced Documents and Websites Report Name Report Date Document Source “An Analysis of Pension and Other Post Employment June 2012 http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/grand_jury.shtml Benefits” 2011-12 Grand Jury Bartel & Associates Actuarial Consulting http://www.bartel-associates.com/home California Labor Code Section 4850 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/LAB/1/d4/2/2/7/s4850 California A Public Pensions Annual Report - State June 2010 http://www.californiapublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CA- Controller’s Office Public-Retirement-Systems-6-30-2010-released-03-03-2012.pdf CalPERS main website http://www.calpers.ca.gov/ CalPERS Disability & Industrial Disability Retirement for a 2012 http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/employer/program- Public Agency Employer services/retirement/dis-ind-retire/home.xml CalPERS Disability Retirement Guide 2012 https://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/benefits-overview/disability- industrial-disability.xml CalPERS Guide to Completing Your Disability Retirement December http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/forms-pubs/mbr-pubs/calpers- Election Application 2012 member-pubs/planning-retirement.xml CalPERS Experience Study 1997-2007 2010 http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/employer/retiree-ben-trust/experience- study.pdf CalPERS Facts at a Glance April 2013 http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/facts/home.xml CalPERS Pension Primer Oct 2009 www.calpersresponds.com/downloads/Pension_Primer.pdf CalPERS Policies and Procedures for a Public Agency May 2013 www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/employer/policies-procedures/home.xml Employer Pub 35 CalPERS Public Agency & Schools Reference Guide Feb 2013 http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/forms-pubs/er- pubs/manuals/pas-ref-guide.xml City Auditor’s Report to the City Council of the City of San April 2011 http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=307 Jose “Disability Retirement: A Program in Need of Reform” City Auditor’s Report to the City Council of the City of San Sept 2012 http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=307 Jose “Fire Department Injuries – A More Coordinated Response and Better Follow-up Is Needed” City Auditor’s Report to the City Council of the City of San Dec 2012 http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=309 Jose “Outstanding Audit Recommendations Status” San Jose City Council Public Safety Committee Agenda Sept 2012 http://sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=425 San Jose Retirement Boards Sept 2012 http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=3432 San Jose Measure B Pension Reform Comparison to June 2012 www.ballotpedia.org Similar Reforms San Jose Pension Reform Measure B Pamphlet Text June 2012 www.sanjoseca.gov/documentcenter/view/3965 What is Workers Compensation? http://www.usworkerscomp.com/workers-compensation 19 Appendix C: Questionnaire Response Data City of Sheriff Law Los Los Mountain Palo San Campbell Gilroy Milpitas Santa Enforcement+ Sunnyvale Altos Gatos View Alto Jose Clara SCC Fire Current # of Public Safety 40 103 36 38 150 166 222 1718 286 775 195 employees (eligible for IDR) Current # of 0 40 0 0 55 72 121 642 144 225 81 Firefighters % of Public Safety employees 0% 39% 0% 0% 37% 43% 55% 37% 50% 29% 42% who are Firefighters Total Public Safety 7 14 16 6 23 22 43 503 83 176 32 retirements (over 5 yrs) Industrial disability 0 6 3 1 7 6 22 151 25 45 9 retirements (over 5 yrs) % of Industrial disability 0% 43% 19% 17% 30% 27% 51% 30% 30% 26% 28% retirements (over 5 yrs) 20 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 11th day of June, 2013. Steven P. McPherson Foreperson Lyn H. Johnson Foreperson pro tem Chester F. Hayes Foreperson pro tem Francis A. Stephens Secretary 21
Related Recommendations (1)
R13: Describe programs, both voluntary and mandatory, that your city/county uses to promote employee wellness and/or injury prevention for safety employees. 18
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Trucks’ daily use of the commissaries is important to ensure that they are cleaned and serviced to avoid health hazards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County should evaluate methods to determine if Trucks are using commissaries daily.
F2: Official Inspection Reports do not identify the commissary associated with a Truck.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The County should ensure that an OIR includes the commissary identification so that violations that could potentially implicate the commissary can be identified.
F3: The Consumer Protection Division has no record of where a particular Truck parks overnight.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The County should continue to explore tracking technologies such as GPS for Trucks, to ensure they are parking at a commissary or another approved facility overnight.
F4: It can be difficult for CPD inspectors to locate a Truck in the field for random inspections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The County should continue to explore tracking technologies such as GPS for Trucks to enhance CPD’s ability to conduct random inspections.
Findings & Recommendations 30 findings
F1: The Campbell Police Department makes their complaint procedure available only in hard copy form in their lobby.
F2: The Campbell Police Department makes their complaint procedure available only in English.
F3: The Gilroy Police Department makes their complaint materials available only upon request.
F4: The Gilroy Police Department makes their multilingual complaint materials available only upon request.
F5: The Los Altos Police Department makes all of their multilingual complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
F6: The Los Altos Police Department complaint form includes reference to the unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory.
F7: The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department does not make all of their complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
F8: The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department complaint materials are only available in English.
F9: The Milpitas Police Department does not make all of their complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby. 10
F10: The Milpitas Police Department does not make multilingual complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
F11: The Morgan Hill Police Department does not make their complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
F12: The Morgan Hill Police Department complaint materials are available only in English.
F13: The Morgan Hill Police Department complaint materials include reference to the unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory and language that mirrors the California Civil Code Section 47.5 civil advisory.
F14: The Mountain View Police Department does not make all of their complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in their lobby in hard copy form.
F15: The Mountain View Police Department complaint materials are available only in English.
F16: The Mountain View Police Department complaint materials include reference to the unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory.
F17: The Palo Alto Police Department does not make their complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
F18: The Palo Alto Police Department does not make multilingual complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in their lobby. 12
F19: The San Jose Police Department complaint form provides little guidance to the complainant about what information is needed.
F20: The San Jose Police Department does not make all of their complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in all of their lobbies.
F21: The San Jose Police Department does not make all of their multilingual complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in all their lobbies.
F22: The Santa Clara Police Department does not make all complaint materials available on- line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
F23: The Santa Clara Police Department does not make multilingual complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
F24: The Office of the Sheriff does not make their complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in all their lobbies.
F25: The Office of the Sheriff does not make multilingual complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in all their lobbies.
F26: The Office of the Sheriff complaint materials include language that mirrors California Civil Code Section 47.5 civil advisory.
F27: The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety on-line complaint form provides little guidance to the complainant about what information is needed. 14
F28: The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety does not make all of their complaint materials available in all Department of Public Safety websites operated by the City of Sunnyvale.
F29: The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety does not make multilingual complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
F30: The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety complaint materials include reference to the unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory.
Additional Recommendations 30

Not linked to specific findings.

R1a: The Campbell Police Department should make their complaint procedure available on- line.
R1b: The Campbell Police Department should make a complaint form available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R2: The Campbell Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R3: The Gilroy Police Department should make their complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R4: The Gilroy Police Department should make their multilingual complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby. 9
R6: The Los Altos Police Department should remove reference to the unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory from their complaint form.
R7: The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department should make their complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R8: The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R9: The Milpitas Police Department should make their complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R10: The Milpitas Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R11: The Morgan Hill Police Department should make their complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R12: The Morgan Hill Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R13: The Morgan Hill Police Department should remove reference to the unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 advisory and the language that mirrors the California Civil Code Section 47.5 civil advisory from their complaint materials. 11
R14: The Mountain View Police Department should make their complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R15: The Mountain View Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R16: The Mountain View Police Department should remove reference to the unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory from their complaint materials.
R17: The Palo Alto Police Department should make their complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R18: The Palo Alto Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R19: The San Jose Police Department should add content guidance to their complaint form.
R20: The San Jose Police Department should make their complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in all their lobbies.
R21: The San Jose Police Department should make all of their multilingual complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in all their lobbies.
R22: The Santa Clara Police Department should make all complaint materials available on- line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby. 13
R23: The Santa Clara Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R24: The Office of the Sheriff should make their complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in all their lobbies.
R25: The Office of the Sheriff should make multilingual complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in all their lobbies.
R26: The Office of the Sheriff should remove the language that mirrors California Civil Code Section 47.5 civil advisory from their complaint materials.
R27: The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety should add content guidance to their on- line complaint form.
R28: The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety should make their complaint materials available in all Department of Public Safety websites operated by the City of Sunnyvale.
R29: The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety should make multilingual complaint materials freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
R30: The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety should remove reference to the unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory from their complaint materials.
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: CABs shift large, compounding interest costs to future taxpayers and will inevitably compound the burdens school districts face in operating effective schools for their students in the future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Each school district in Santa Clara County should adopt a Board policy and any necessary administrative regulation indicating its intent to comply with the moratorium called for by the State Treasurer and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. California Department of Education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr13/yr13rel12.asp) Page Generated: 5/14/2013 3:47:44 PM Release: #13-12 Contact: Paul Hefner January 17, 2013 E-mail: communications@cde.ca.gov Phone: 916-319-0818 Contact: Tom Dresslar E-mail: tdresslar@treasurer.ca.gov Phone: 916-653-2995 State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson, State Treasurer Bill Lockyer Caution School Districts Against Issuance of Capital Appreciation Bonds SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson and State Treasurer Bill Lockyer today issued the following letter to local educational agencies regarding capital appreciation bonds: Dear County and District Superintendents: CAPITAL APPRECIATION BONDS We understand many districts face a critical need to build or modernize facilities for their children, and we recognize that falling property tax assessments, revenue losses, and statutory debt service limits have all combined to reduce districts' debt financing options. As a result, some districts have turned to capital appreciation bonds (CABs), which have forced taxpayers to pay more than 10 times the principal to retire the bonds. Thus, we urge you and your Board of Education not to issue CABs until the Legislature and the Governor have completed their consideration of this year's proposals to reform the CAB issuance process by improving transparency and protecting taxpayers against exorbitant debt service payments. Through this process, we welcome and encourage your input to ensure that the needs of districts are still being met. In too many cases, CAB deals have forced taxpayers to pay more than 10 times the principal to retire the bonds. Also, the transactions have been structured with 40-year terms that delay interest and principal payments for decades, resulting in huge balloon payments and burdens on future taxpayers that cannot be justified. Too frequently, board members and the public have not been fully informed about the costs and risks associated with CABs. In some cases, board members have reported they were not even aware they approved the sale of CABs. It is important to note that CABs with terms exceeding 25 years place the repayment obligation on future taxpayers who likely will not benefit from the capital improvements financed by the CABs. At the same time, the CABs payments will reduce those taxpayers' capacity to finance construction and modernization projects their own children will need. We are convinced that remedial legislation is needed to prevent abuses and ensure that both school board members and the public obtain timely, accurate, complete, and clear information about the costs of CABs, and alternatives, before CABs are issued. The Governor has told us he wants reforms. Key lawmakers and legislative leaders have made clear they agree statutory changes are needed. For all these reasons, we believe your district and every other district in the state should impose a moratorium on issuing CABs. The moratorium should remain in effect until the Governor and Legislature decide on reforms in the current legislative session. If reforms are enacted, subsequent CABs deals can be conducted in compliance with the new statutory requirements. Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Jeannie Oropeza, Deputy Superintendent, California Department of Education, by email at joropeza@cde.ca.gov. Sincerely, Tom Torlakson State Superintendent of Public Instruction California Department of Education Bill Lockyer State Treasurer California State Treasurer's Office # # # # Tom Torlakson — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Communications Division, Room 5206, 916-319-0818, Fax 916-319-0100 7 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 9th day of May, 2013. Steven P. McPherson Foreperson Lyn H. Johnson Foreperson pro tem Chester F. Hayes Foreperson pro tem Francis A. Stephens Secretary 8
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: The interior of the doors in the individual housing units are covered with graffiti and gang tagging.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County should explore and test methods to eliminate graffiti and gang tagging in Juvenile Hall. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 23rd day of May, 2013. Steven P. McPherson Foreperson Lyn H. Johnson Foreperson pro tem Chester F. Hayes Foreperson pro tem Francis A. Stephens Secretary 5
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R0: r o r C yo o r Ho e n R e do e k Cre s ek ervo s A a i n L M im r a L s M l o C a San Fe r li o p g e e Cr r ee a k e rg A s k g lam C e aa d r a A R e n C n e r n e e k e s d H k H e e i r r l v s S il m o i l o th C l i r n ee r k P £¤ a 1 ck 0 wo 1 od Creek C S L o o M d i y t id t a l o d e l S e te C p F r o o i r y n k o g C t s o e yo C C te re a C e n k re y e o k n East Fork Coy C ot o e yo C te r C e re e ek k sip si p ss i i C M reek Henry W N . or C th F o ork P e ach eco S Cre ke tate Park and Permit Area Reservoir Uvas Pacheco S E E t x x a c p t l a e u n d P d e a e d r d k f r S I o n t m u S d P t y u e A d r y m re A i a t r A e a a r n e d b a u P t ermit I R M n e c a s o jo e r r p r v o S o r t a i r r e t s e a d m A s reas Reservoir Uvas-C ·þ|} 1 a 5 rn 2 adero Creek GGiillrrooyy Canada de los Osos Res · e |}þ 1
R5: v 2 oir Area for Burrowing Owl Conservation Creek 5 2.5 0 5 ICF Internation D a a l t 1 a (2 0 S 0 M 0 o i 7 u le ) r , c s S es C : VWD M ( a 20 jo 05 r ) R , oads ´ Pescadero Creek ·þ|} 2 P 5 ajaro River Pacheco ca he P c o State Park City of San Jose (2006), City of Morgan Hill (2006), City of Gilroy (2006) Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Study Area and Permit Area )01-22-30( sd DXM.11X8_AERAYDUTS_2-1GIF \ SGIF_1RETPAHC \ PAMCRA \ 50_98450 \ PCH_ARALC_ATNAS \ 2_STCEJORP \ :K Prepared by: This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 11th day of April, 2013. Steven P. McPherson Foreperson Lyn H. Johnson Foreperson pro tem Chester F. Hayes Foreperson pro tem Francis A. Stephens Secretary 13
Findings & Recommendations 13 findings
F1: As of August 2012, nearly two-thirds of the PAGC office Policies and Procedures have not been reviewed or updated for five years or more, as has been recommended by previous reports and audits.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a: The County should require the PAGC to establish a completion date for the review and update of PAGC Policies and Procedures.
R1b: The County should monitor the progress toward the timely completion of the review and update of the PAGC office Policies and Procedures.
F2: As of February 2013, less than one-third of the PAGC office Policies and Procedures are available on the department intranet for PAGC staff use.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a: The County should require the PAGC to establish a completion date for the transfer of hard-copy Policies and Procedures to the department intranet.
R2b: The County should monitor the progress toward the timely transfer to the department intranet of the PAGC office Policies and Procedures.
F3: The PAGC policy (#204) that defines the review and revision procedure leaves undefined a maximum review interval for its office procedures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The County should require a maximum review interval for all PAGC Policies and Procedures. 16
F4: The PAGC has no documented process to record and track client or client advocate complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The County should require the PAGC to establish Policies and procedures to record and track complaints against the PAGC.
F5: PAGC personnel do not consistently utilize the Panoramic Case Management System.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5a: The County should require the PAGC to identify the issues that prevent the full use of the Panoramic system.
R5b: The County should require the PAGC to establish a completion date for resolution of the identified issues preventing the full use of the Panoramic system by the PAGC.
R5c: The County should monitor the progress toward the timely resolution of the identified issues preventing the full use of the Panoramic system by the PAGC.
F6: The PAGC does not maintain case documents in a standardized fashion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: The County should require the PAGC to establish procedures and standards for the maintenance of case documents in a standardized fashion. 17
F7: The PAGC does not have clearly delineated personnel responsible for problem solving, maintenance, and training for the Panoramic software system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The County should require the PAGC to assign the necessary resources to assess and oversee the operation of the Panoramic software system, and to provide training and assistance to staff.
F8: Not all PAGC Deputy Public Guardians, Conservators, or Estate Administrators are CAPAPGPC certified.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: The County should require that all PAGC Deputy Public Guardians, Conservators, and Estate Administrators be CAPAPGPC certified.
F9: PAGC Employee performance reviews, as stipulated by the SEIU Local 521 Performance Appraisal Program Agreement, are not being conducted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: The County should require that the PAGC conduct employee performance reviews as stipulated by the SEIU Local 521 Performance Appraisal Program Agreement.
F10: The PAGC does not hold regularly scheduled staff meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: The County should require that the PAGC conduct regularly scheduled, mandatory staff meetings for both supervisorial and line staff. 18
F11: The PAGC does not have a clearly established procedure that governs staff sign-in and sign-out.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: The County should require that the PAGC establish a procedure that governs staff sign- in and sign-out as a means of providing accountability for field activities.
F12: The PAGC has not provided training in response to revised job descriptions and responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12: The County should require that PAGC personnel receive timely training related to their responsibilities.
F13: The PAGC does not consistently use training materials or have a training methodology in place for new office personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13: The County should require the PAGC to implement a procedure and training module for new office personnel.
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: The Grand Jury found that the Elmwood Correctional Complex does have, and follows, reasonable release procedures for its inmates.
F2: The Grand Jury found that the inmates are prepared prior to their release and are informed about arranging transportation from the facility.
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: No recommendation. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 8t h day of May, 2013. Steven P. McPherson Foreperson Lyn H. Johnson Foreperson pro tem Chester F. Hayes Foreperson pro tem Francis A. Stephens Secretary 5
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: The District pays more in compensation than is required by its Collective Bargaining Agreement with Alum Rock Educators Association teachers’ union by expanding the definition of “longevity points” to include out-of-district service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The compensation practices of the District should be made to be consistent with the terms of its Collective Bargaining Agreements.
F2: The District’s definition of “longevity points,” when applied to non-union employees, is ambiguous.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a: The District’s compensation documents for non-union employees should be clarified to define exactly what, how, and under what conditions compensation for “longevity points” is to be applied.
R2b: The compensation practices of the District should be made to be consistent with the terms contained in its compensation documents. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 13th day of June, 2013. Steven P. McPherson Foreperson Lyn H. Johnson Foreperson pro tem Chester F. Hayes Foreperson pro tem Francis A. Stephens Secretary 6
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Not all County Department of Agriculture CFM inspectors report the steps taken to correct the violations listed on the official Inspection Reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: All County Department of Agriculture CFM inspectors should include the steps taken to correct violations on all of the Santa Clara County Farmers’ Market Inspection Reports.
F2: The County Department of Agriculture Farmers’ Market Inspection Reports are not posted online at the County website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The County’s Department of Agriculture should post all Farmer’s Market Inspection Reports online for easy customer review.
F3: All County Department of Environmental Health Specialists do not include the steps taken to correct violations on all of the Official Inspection Reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: All County Department of Environmental Health Specialists should include the steps taken to correct violations on all the Official Inspection Reports.
F4: The County’s Department of Environmental Health does not report the Environmental Health Specialist findings that lead to the violations cited on the Official Inspection Reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: All County Department of Environmental Health Specialists should include the findings that lead to the violations cited on the Official Inspection Reports.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.