COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager's Office

 

DATE:

April 8, 2003

BOARD MEETING DATE:

April 22, 2003

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

John L. Maltbie, County Manager

SUBJECT:

Proposed Responses to the 2002-2003 Grand Jury Report

 

Recommendation
Accept this response to the 2002-2003 Grand Jury report and recommendations concerning the following: San Francisco Jails in San Mateo County, LAFCo Municipal Service Reviews and the Arts Commission of San Mateo County.

 

Discussion

The 2002-2003 Grand Jury issued four reports on January 29, 2003, three of which require response by the County Board of Supervisors. A report on the East Palo Alto Sanitary District does not require a County response. The County is mandated to respond to the Grand Jury within 90 days from the date that reports are filed with the County Clerk and Elected Officials are mandated to respond within 60 days. The reports pertaining to San Francisco Jails in San Mateo County and LAFCo Municipal Service Reviews also require direct responses from the Sheriff and the LAFCo Commission, respectively. Attached, please find the proposed County responses prepared by staff.

Criminal Justice

San Francisco Jails in San Mateo County

Findings:

Security - Concur that:

· it is highly dangerous to have an inmate escape due to the proximity of the jails to the neighboring residential area

· the condition of the San Francisco County jails and the current security features are adequate at best

· the affected agencies have documented protocols and procedures in place to deal with such emergencies (i.e., escapes and riots)

Costs - Concur that:

· there are costs associated with the apprehension of escapees in terms of manpower, overtime, and vehicles and equipment deployment

Recommendation:

The County Board of Supervisors and San Mateo County Sheriff should negotiate an agreement with the San Francisco County Sheriff and the City and County of San Francisco that delineates a mutual understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of each county in response to emergencies at the San Bruno jail facilities, including the reimbursement of costs incurred by any responding San Mateo County law enforcement agency.

    Response: Concur that the San Mateo County Sheriff, the City and County of San Francisco and the other affected agencies should periodically review emergency protocols and procedures to ensure a mutual understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of each agency in response to emergencies at the San Bruno jail facilities. The Sheriff will confer with County Counsel on the feasibility of charging the City and County of San Francisco for costs associated with calls for services at the jails and report their findings to the Grand Jury in a future quarterly update.

 

Environmental Services Agency

LAFCo Municipal Service Reviews

Findings:

No comment.

Recommendation:

5. In order for LAFCo to achieve greater efficiency and economy of services, the Board of Supervisors should provide sufficient resources to meet the accelerated schedule for Municipal Service Reviews.

    Response: The Commission has determined that the current Municipal Service Review program is appropriate based on local conditions. As a result, LAFCo has not requested additional funds to amend or accelerate the schedule for Municipal Service Reviews. It should be noted that LAFCo is funded in thirds by the County, the cities and the independent special districts, so that any requests for additional funds would need to be made to all affected agencies.

 
 
 

Administration & Fiscal

Arts Commission of San Mateo County

Findings:

Concur that:

· arts are vital parts of our community

· funding is a key element in ensuring that cultural activities are available in the County

· ARTshare, as part of its two-year agreement with the County, is required to provide direct arts services to County residents as well as develop, implement and update the County's Cultural Plan

· Arts Commission is in the process of developing a workplan that will include Cultural Plan activities

· ARTshare is meeting the requirements outlined in the County's agreement, including implementing Cultural Plan goals

The Board of Supervisors supports the findings made by the Grand Jury, however wishes to clarify that the goals identified in the Background Section of this report were not developed by the County Manager's Office but rather from community meetings/workgroups and are part of the Cultural Plan 2002 report.

Recommendations:

1. The Board of Supervisors should develop and implement a policy of continued support for the San Mateo Cultural Plan 2002 with continued funding of its contract arts partner.

    Concur. The Board of Supervisors and County Manager's Office staff are working with the Arts Commission and ARTshare to develop a Cultural Plan progress measure for inclusion in the County's Vision 2010 Report. This progress measure will track the percent of Cultural Plan 2002 goals achieved. Once included in the Vision 2010 Report, the County Manager's Office will monitor progress and report findings to the Board of Supervisors on an annual basis.

    The County's agreement with ARTshare requires the organization to work collaboratively with the County's Arts Commission, whose members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, to implement and update the County's Cultural Plan. In an effort to comply with this requirement, ARTshare, along with the Arts Commission and Board of Supervisors, has sponsored annual Cultural Plan community meetings. The most recent community meetings were held in March 2003 in Redwood City, San Mateo, South San Francisco and Half Moon Bay. Community input provided at the annual meetings will be used to update the Cultural Plan. Major areas of interest continue to be funding for the arts, additional facilities for artists and additional arts education programs.

    This fall County staff will renegotiate ARTshare's agreement, which is set to expire in December 2003. It is the County's expectation that ARTshare will continue to implement the goals identified in the Cultural Plan. The level of funding will be dependent on the availability of resources. The County Manager's Office will submit a recommended budget to the Board of Supervisors in May. During the County's Budget Hearings in June, the Board of Supervisors will determine an appropriate funding level for the arts partner.

    A quarterly status report will be provided to the Grand Jury.

2. The Arts Commission should set funding goals for ARTshare to supplement County funding.

    Concur. The Arts Commission is reviewing the availability of grants for the arts in an effort to recommend adequate funding goals for ARTshare. Upon the request of the Arts Commission, a representative of the Peninsula Community Foundation made a presentation at the Commission's March meeting on the availability of existing arts resources. The Arts Commission will also meet with ARTshare and members of the Board of Supervisors to obtain feedback on specific sources of revenue to pursue. It is anticipated that the Arts Commission's review will be completed within the next couple of months, leaving sufficient time to incorporate recommendations into ARTshare's renegotiated agreement. (The new agreement is scheduled to begin January 1, 2004).

    It should be noted that ARTshare is proactively seeking additional financial support. The organization has or will apply for grant funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, SF Foundation and Peninsula Community Foundation. ARTshare will continue to inform the Arts Commission of its efforts through quarterly status reports (which also provide a synopsis of the arts and cultural activities performed by ARTshare during the quarter) and at the monthly Arts Commission meetings, which ARTshare is required to attend.

    A quarterly status report will be provided to the Grand Jury.