20040504

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager's Office

DATE:

April 20, 2004

BOARD MEETING DATE:

May 4, 2004

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

John L. Maltbie, County Manager

SUBJECT:

Status Report - 1999 and 2002-03 Grand Jury Responses

Recommendation

Accept this report on the status of responses to the 1999 and 2002-03 Grand Jury recommendations.

Discussion

It is the County's policy to provide quarterly updates to the Board and the Grand Jury on the progress of past Grand Jury recommendations requiring ongoing or further action. To that end, attached are updates to prior responses for the Hall of Justice Seismic Retrofit Project (1999), the Assessor's Response to Revenue Enhancement Recommendations (2002-03) and Child Welfare Services (2002-03). You will continue to receive quarterly updates on the progress of implementing recommendations requiring ongoing or further action.

Vision Alignment

This response to the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations keeps the commitment of responsive, effective and collaborative government through goal number 20: Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.

Hall of Justice Seismic Retrofit
Recommendation:
33. The San Mateo County 1999 Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors direct the Director of Public Works to prepare a comprehensive time-phased plan for completion of the seismic retrofit and lead/asbestos abatement of the County Hall of Justice. Urgency should be placed on the development and implementation of the plan, including a detailed time-phased series of actions and the designation of personnel responsible for each action and associated deadlines. The plan should include details on office and employee relocation. The County Board of Supervisors should give high priority to implementation and funding of this program.

Response: Concur. The Director of Public Works will work with the Court on developing a tentative phasing plan that allows for the work to go forward on the 7^th and 8^th floors. A similar approach will be undertaken with the Probation Department for the 5^th Floor. However, a key aspect of this plan will be to identify additional funding sources. An additional $2.2 million will be required to complete the project. To date, the County has spent approximately $1.6 million in the design of the seismic retrofit plan, the remediation work that was done immediately after the Loma Prieta Earthquake, and for the work completed or under construction on the 4^th and 6^th floors. Public Works estimates that it will take approximately two years to complete the work once funding is identified and agreement with the Court and Probation is obtained.

Abatement work is generally done in conjunction with other work on the structure, as encapsulated lead and asbestos in the building will remain in place and does not present a threat to either the citizens visiting the Hall of Justice or employees.

Status of the County's response to this Grand Jury recommendation will be reported in the next quarterly report to the Board.

Status: The final phase of the project includes the retrofit of the roof parapets and procurement/installation of the visco-elastic dampers on the 4^th through 8^th floors. The Structural Consultant is finalizing the construction documents (drawings and specifications). This includes identifying and contacting qualified damper manufacturers, the development of a production and delivery schedule, perform site investigation, the generation of a damper testing program, and the preparation of a set of bid documents with the number, types and configuration of dampers required. Public Works is scheduled to go out to bid by June 8, 2004. Sufficient funds will be available in the FY 2004-05 Recommended Budget to complete the final phase of the project, which is anticipated to last approximately six months from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Assessor's Response to Revenue Enhancement Recommendations
Recommendations:
1.9 The Assessor's Office should immediately:

a. Review and estimate the revenue potential of each Board of Equalization (BOE) recommendation shown in Appendix "A".

b. Estimate the cost of implementation for each BOE recommendation in Appendix "A", and

c. Identify any additional personnel and resources necessary to implement any recommendation that will return a positive cash flow to the county, and report their findings to the County Manager.
1.10 The County Manager should, within thirty days following completion of recommendation 2, review the Assessor's report and allocate any additional personnel and resources necessary to implement BOE's recommendations.

Response: The County Manager's Office will review the Assessor's report within 30 days to determine whether additional resources are warranted. The Board of Supervisors, not the County Manager, appropriates funds. Considering the State and County's fiscal crisis, additional resources would only be considered if the Assessor's report can demonstrate that a net gain, through increased revenues, would be achieved by adding resources. Findings will be provided to the Grand Jury in a future quarterly update.

Status: The Assessor's Office submitted a report to the County Manager's Office addressing the five revenue enhancement recommendations initially proposed by the State Board of Equalization (BOE) in the areas of Change in Ownership, California Land Conversation and Act Program and Marine Valuation Program. Below are the BOE's recommendations and the Assessor's findings and responses relating to potential revenue enhancements and staffing needs or resources:

1. Apply the penalty for noncompliance with the change in ownership statement (COS) request.

Pursuant to the Assessor's response there is no potential net revenue to be derived from the implementation of a Change in Ownership penalty program. An audit of San Mateo County Assessor's Assessment Practices concludes that discovery and valuation of taxable property results in an assessment ratio of 99.4%. The penalty provisions of the Change in Ownership Reporting statutes were enacted to assure compliance in reporting change in ownership events and not designed as a revenue mechanism. An analysis of the penalty program in other California counties indicates that eventual compliance with the Change in Ownership Statement filing requirements result in abatement of most penalties.

2. Use the BOE-prescribed change in ownership statement.

The BOE recommended using the standard change in ownership form in order to legally impose penalties relating to non-compliance with change in ownership statement requests. However, the Assessor's Office utilizes its own forms, which are customized for specific types of transactions and provide more reliable information. Even though the Assessor's Office does not impose penalties, their forms previously included the penalty language, which has since been removed.

3. Use current income in determining the restricted value of California Land Conservation Act lands.

See response to revenue enhancement recommendation number 4 below.

4. Obtain current income and production data from the property owner for assessing CLCA lands.

The 2003-04 assessed value of the 519 CLCA properties within San Mateo County that include 47,720 acres of land is $47,838,187. This assessed value generates approximately $480,000 in property tax revenue. Approximately $67, 000 of this revenue accrues to the County. The BOE recommends a process change, however, their survey stated "we reviewed five parcels whose contracts expired for roll year 1997-98 and found no discrepancies in their valuation." The Assessor's Office does not believe that any additional property tax revenue would be generated through an extensive income study of CLCA properties. Even if the assessed value were to increase 10%, additional costs associated with the recommended process changes would likely exceed any additional revenue.

5. Annually, determine the market value of (marine) vessels valued below $80,000. (Note: The Assessor's analysis reflected significant valuation differences for individual vessels).

The Assessor's Office has records for over 25,000 boats or vessels with an assessed value of $90 to $105 million. The Assessor's Office receives monthly notifications from the Department of Motor Vehicles and updates are made in the Assessor's database. In addition, staff now work with marina operators and harbormasters within the county to train them on submittal of harbor listings as of the lien date. The Assessor's Office has also implemented a new depreciation schedule. Utilizing existing staff and this new process, the Assessor's Office intends to continue comparing the 2003 assessed boat values against the NADA price guides (industry standard used for boat valuations) for the purpose of developing depreciation factors for the 2004 assessment roll.

Based on the review of the Assessor's Report, additional staffing or resources to implement the above recommendations are not required at this time. A copy of the Assessor's full report can be obtained by request from the County Manager's Office.
Child Welfare Services
Recommendations:
Refer to Recommendations 4.7 to 4.11 of the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury's 2002-03 Final Report.
Status: During the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 6, 2004, Supervisor Nevin proposed that a subcommittee be formed to deal with recommended changes that came from several reports regarding the system for the delivery of child protection services in San Mateo County. Supervisors will appoint an independent consultant selected from a list prepared by the California State Association of Counties and will report back to the County Board of Supervisors by June 1, 2004. The independent expert will examine operations, and review findings and recommendations contained within the 2002-03 Grand Jury report, the report from Juvenile Court Judge Marta Diaz, and the Joint County/Court blue-ribbon panel.



COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence
County Manager's Office

DATE:		April 20, 2004

BOARD MEETING DATE:		May 4, 2004

TO:	Honorable Board of Supervisors
FROM:	John L. Maltbie, County Manager
SUBJECT:	Status Report - 1999 and 2002-03 Grand Jury Responses

Recommendation
Accept this report on the status of responses to the 1999 and 2002-03 Grand Jury recommendations.
Discussion
It is the County's policy to provide quarterly updates to the Board and the Grand Jury on the progress of past Grand Jury recommendations requiring ongoing or further action. To that end, attached are updates to prior responses for the Hall of Justice Seismic Retrofit Project (1999), the Assessor's Response to Revenue Enhancement Recommendations (2002-03) and Child Welfare Services (2002-03). You will continue to receive quarterly updates on the progress of implementing recommendations requiring ongoing or further action.
Vision Alignment
This response to the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations keeps the commitment of responsive, effective and collaborative government through goal number 20: Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.
Hall of Justice Seismic Retrofit Recommendation: 33. The San Mateo County 1999 Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors direct the Director of Public Works to prepare a comprehensive time-phased plan for completion of the seismic retrofit and lead/asbestos abatement of the County Hall of Justice. Urgency should be placed on the development and implementation of the plan, including a detailed time-phased series of actions and the designation of personnel responsible for each action and associated deadlines. The plan should include details on office and employee relocation. The County Board of Supervisors should give high priority to implementation and funding of this program. Response: Concur. The Director of Public Works will work with the Court on developing a tentative phasing plan that allows for the work to go forward on the 7^th and 8^th floors. A similar approach will be undertaken with the Probation Department for the 5^th Floor. However, a key aspect of this plan will be to identify additional funding sources. An additional $2.2 million will be required to complete the project. To date, the County has spent approximately $1.6 million in the design of the seismic retrofit plan, the remediation work that was done immediately after the Loma Prieta Earthquake, and for the work completed or under construction on the 4^th and 6^th floors. Public Works estimates that it will take approximately two years to complete the work once funding is identified and agreement with the Court and Probation is obtained. Abatement work is generally done in conjunction with other work on the structure, as encapsulated lead and asbestos in the building will remain in place and does not present a threat to either the citizens visiting the Hall of Justice or employees. Status of the County's response to this Grand Jury recommendation will be reported in the next quarterly report to the Board. Status: The final phase of the project includes the retrofit of the roof parapets and procurement/installation of the visco-elastic dampers on the 4^th through 8^th floors. The Structural Consultant is finalizing the construction documents (drawings and specifications). This includes identifying and contacting qualified damper manufacturers, the development of a production and delivery schedule, perform site investigation, the generation of a damper testing program, and the preparation of a set of bid documents with the number, types and configuration of dampers required. Public Works is scheduled to go out to bid by June 8, 2004. Sufficient funds will be available in the FY 2004-05 Recommended Budget to complete the final phase of the project, which is anticipated to last approximately six months from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Assessor's Response to Revenue Enhancement Recommendations Recommendations: 1.9 The Assessor's Office should immediately: a. Review and estimate the revenue potential of each Board of Equalization (BOE) recommendation shown in Appendix "A". b. Estimate the cost of implementation for each BOE recommendation in Appendix "A", and c. Identify any additional personnel and resources necessary to implement any recommendation that will return a positive cash flow to the county, and report their findings to the County Manager. 1.10 The County Manager should, within thirty days following completion of recommendation 2, review the Assessor's report and allocate any additional personnel and resources necessary to implement BOE's recommendations. Response: The County Manager's Office will review the Assessor's report within 30 days to determine whether additional resources are warranted. The Board of Supervisors, not the County Manager, appropriates funds. Considering the State and County's fiscal crisis, additional resources would only be considered if the Assessor's report can demonstrate that a net gain, through increased revenues, would be achieved by adding resources. Findings will be provided to the Grand Jury in a future quarterly update. Status: The Assessor's Office submitted a report to the County Manager's Office addressing the five revenue enhancement recommendations initially proposed by the State Board of Equalization (BOE) in the areas of Change in Ownership, California Land Conversation and Act Program and Marine Valuation Program. Below are the BOE's recommendations and the Assessor's findings and responses relating to potential revenue enhancements and staffing needs or resources: 1. Apply the penalty for noncompliance with the change in ownership statement (COS) request. Pursuant to the Assessor's response there is no potential net revenue to be derived from the implementation of a Change in Ownership penalty program. An audit of San Mateo County Assessor's Assessment Practices concludes that discovery and valuation of taxable property results in an assessment ratio of 99.4%. The penalty provisions of the Change in Ownership Reporting statutes were enacted to assure compliance in reporting change in ownership events and not designed as a revenue mechanism. An analysis of the penalty program in other California counties indicates that eventual compliance with the Change in Ownership Statement filing requirements result in abatement of most penalties. 2. Use the BOE-prescribed change in ownership statement. The BOE recommended using the standard change in ownership form in order to legally impose penalties relating to non-compliance with change in ownership statement requests. However, the Assessor's Office utilizes its own forms, which are customized for specific types of transactions and provide more reliable information. Even though the Assessor's Office does not impose penalties, their forms previously included the penalty language, which has since been removed. 3. Use current income in determining the restricted value of California Land Conservation Act lands. See response to revenue enhancement recommendation number 4 below. 4. Obtain current income and production data from the property owner for assessing CLCA lands. The 2003-04 assessed value of the 519 CLCA properties within San Mateo County that include 47,720 acres of land is $47,838,187. This assessed value generates approximately $480,000 in property tax revenue. Approximately $67, 000 of this revenue accrues to the County. The BOE recommends a process change, however, their survey stated *"we reviewed five parcels whose contracts expired for roll year 1997-98 and found no discrepancies in their valuation."* The Assessor's Office does not believe that any additional property tax revenue would be generated through an extensive income study of CLCA properties. Even if the assessed value were to increase 10%, additional costs associated with the recommended process changes would likely exceed any additional revenue. 5. Annually, determine the market value of (marine) vessels valued below $80,000. (Note: The Assessor's analysis reflected significant valuation differences for individual vessels). The Assessor's Office has records for over 25,000 boats or vessels with an assessed value of $90 to $105 million. The Assessor's Office receives monthly notifications from the Department of Motor Vehicles and updates are made in the Assessor's database. In addition, staff now work with marina operators and harbormasters within the county to train them on submittal of harbor listings as of the lien date. The Assessor's Office has also implemented a new depreciation schedule. Utilizing existing staff and this new process, the Assessor's Office intends to continue comparing the 2003 assessed boat values against the NADA price guides (industry standard used for boat valuations) for the purpose of developing depreciation factors for the 2004 assessment roll. Based on the review of the Assessor's Report, additional staffing or resources to implement the above recommendations are not required at this time. A copy of the Assessor's full report can be obtained by request from the County Manager's Office. Child Welfare Services Recommendations: Refer to Recommendations 4.7 to 4.11 of the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury's 2002-03 Final Report. Status: During the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 6, 2004, Supervisor Nevin proposed that a subcommittee be formed to deal with recommended changes that came from several reports regarding the system for the delivery of child protection services in San Mateo County. Supervisors will appoint an independent consultant selected from a list prepared by the California State Association of Counties and will report back to the County Board of Supervisors by June 1, 2004. The independent expert will examine operations, and review findings and recommendations contained within the 2002-03 Grand Jury report, the report from Juvenile Court Judge Marta Diaz, and the Joint County/Court blue-ribbon panel.