COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager’s Office

 

DATE:

August 3, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

August 16, 2005

SPECIAL NOTICE:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

None

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

John L. Maltbie, County Manager

SUBJECT:

2004-05 Grand Jury Response

 

Recommendation

Accept this report containing the County’s response to the 2004-05 Grand Jury reports: San Mateo County Jails and Homeland Security in San Mateo County; and the County’s update to the June 21st response on Improving Water Quality Flowing to the Ocean and Bay.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Responsive, effective and collaborative government.

Goal 20: Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.

This activity contributes to the goal by ensuring that all Grand Jury findings and recommendations are thoroughly reviewed by the appropriate County departments and that, when appropriate, process improvements are made to improve the quality and efficiency of services provided to the public and other agencies.

Discussion

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. It is also the County’s policy to provide periodic 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 the County’s responses to the Grand Jury’s reports on Homeland Security in San Mateo County issued June 2, 2005 and San Mateo County Jails issued June 14, 2005. An update to the County’s June 21, 2005 response to the Grand Jury on Improving Water Quality Flowing to the Ocean and Bay has also been included.

Homeland Security in San Mateo County

Findings:

Agree with the findings with the following corrections:

Second paragraph, page five:

While Federal funds have diminished, the $44 million that was awarded to the City and County of San Francisco has been significantly reduced. This grant is separate from the Homeland Security Grants received by San Mateo County. While San Francisco received similar Homeland Security Grants, the $44 million figure comes from a separate grant called the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). San Mateo County is not identified as an UASI “City,” and therefore, did not receive those funds. San Mateo County did, however, receive some monies from San Francisco from the UASI grant, as did Marin County.

First paragraph, page six:

Funds that were granted to the Regional Terrorism and Threat Assessment Center (RTTAC) were awarded through the Office of Domestic Preparedness Homeland Security Grant Program. The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) is the home of the RTTAC as both entities are intelligence centers involved in specific threats. Both are funded through different sources.

Recommendations:

The Board of Supervisors and Sheriff should:

1. Acquire and implement the proper technologies to further improve communications between San Mateo County first responder agencies as well as with neighboring jurisdictions.

Response: Concur. Current projects include information sharing technology and increased communications methods from voice, data, and wireless imaging. San Mateo County will continue to seek technology upgrades to overcome communication breakdowns as they arise.

2. Provide additional hiring and training for all personnel in the Sheriff’s Area Office of Emergency Services in the prevention of terrorist attacks.

Response: Concur in part. Training personnel is essential to effective prevention efforts; however, neither the current Joint Powers Authority budget nor the current allocation of Federal Homeland Security Grant Program funds provide for increased staffing at this time.

3. Draw down funds before the October 2005 deadlines directly from the Federal government to take advantage of the unique waiver granted by Congress. These funds can be used to service, use, and maintain all equipment required for first responders, and to purchase needed equipment sooner rather than later.

Response: Concur. All funds will be drawn down before the deadline.

4. Negotiate with other Bay Area offices of emergency services within the Coastside Regional Offices of Emergency Services to improve interaction, sharing of resources, training, and cost savings.

Response: Concur. OES/HS attends and participates at all Mutual Aid Regional Advisory Council meetings with State OES, Coastal Region Staff, and all Operational Areas within the Coastal Region. There are several communication sub-committees associated with this effort. All OES/HS staff are members of the California Emergency Services Association (CESA). Most importantly the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) mandates everyone work together through the Five Levels of SEMS (Filed, Local, Operational Area, Region, and State).

San Mateo County Jails

Findings:

Agree with the findings. While jail overcrowding continues to be a problem, on-going steps are being taken to address overcrowding issues and identify solutions. Working with other Divisions within the Sheriff’s Office as well as the Courts and other San Mateo County Criminal Justice Agencies, Jail Administration is reviewing alternative approaches to managing jail overcrowding and increases in gang and mentally ill inmate populations.

The Women’s Correctional Facility is outdated and does not afford sufficient space or programming resources to effectively manage the women inmate population. The County is committed to identifying an appropriate solution to the outdated and outmoded facility.

Recommendation:

1. The Board of Supervisors should continue with the sub-committee on Jail Overcrowding and the Jail Overcrowding Task Force to determine the most feasible solutions to the problem and implement those solutions.

Response: Concur. The Jail Overcrowding Task Force will convene to review a final report that recommends on-going monitoring of jail population trends by a position added to Maguire Administration during the FY 2005-06 budget process. Task Force members will be provided with regular updates on jail population trends and recommended solutions as needed. Task Force members will reconvene on a semi-annual or as-needed basis as long as overcrowding issues continue at the jail.

2. The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff should immediately develop a plan to replace the existing Women’s Correctional Center with a new facility that meets the California Board of Corrections current standards. This new facility should include room for multiple classes, child care, an honor camp, and more opportunities for work inside the facility.

Response: Concur. In June 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted the FY 2005-06 Recommended Budget, which includes funds to hire a consultant to conduct a needs and site assessment for a new Women’s Correctional Center.

3. The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff should complete installation of security cameras in the Women’s Correctional Center immediately.

Response: Concur. Installation of security cameras at the Women’s Correctional Center is nearly complete.

4. The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff should make expanding the Choices Program a priority in both the men’s and the women’s jails.

Response: Concur. The Maguire Correctional Facility will work with Correctional Health Services, the Service League, and the Classification Unit to review solutions for expanding the Choices Programs and other identified programs throughout the facility to provide accessible services to the inmate population. The existing Women’s Correctional Center does not have the physical capacity to expand the Choices Program; however, the County remains committed to the program and will consider its expansion as a part of the Women’s correctional programming and facility needs assessment scheduled to begin in the fall.

Jail Administration is also reviewing the possibility of establishing inmate computer workstations with Microsoft Office and limited Internet Access for inmates located in the pod’s multi-purpose rooms and will review other optional program enhancements.

5. The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff should add one additional staff person to the Women’s Correctional Center.

Response: Concur in part. Given the sustained increase in inmate population at the Women’s Correctional Center, the availability of resources to fund one additional staff member per team in FY 2005-06 will be considered at the September Budget Hearings.

Improving Water Quality Flowing to the Ocean and Bay

(Update to June 21, 2005 Response)

Recommendation:

2. The Board of Supervisors should provide funding for Environmental Health Services Division for a staff person whose function is to determine pollution sources and to monitor ranches for compliance.

Response: The following has been or will be done:

A. The San Mateo County Farm Bureau, as part of a multi-county agreement with the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary, works with local farmers and ranchers to help monitor and mitigate any pollution that could reach the ocean. The Farm Bureau is our liaison with these farmers and ranchers. Division staff has requested that more emphasis be placed on bacterial pollution.

B. The San Mateo County Resource Conservation District has been awarded a grant to perform monitoring of water that runs off of farms and ranches in San Mateo County. The Division is an active partner in the proposed work, which includes bacterial monitoring.

C. One Division staff member addresses stream water quality. While his efforts have primarily focused on San Vicente Creek, the Division plans to investigate the source of pollution for every stream where pollution is significant and the source is unknown.

D. As issues and the need for compliance monitoring arise, the current weekly beach water sampling process can easily be modified to address those issues as necessary.

3. Direct Environmental Health Services Division to expand the focus of manure management plans to include an emphasis on decreasing creek pollution.

Response: This recommendation has been implemented as of July 1, 2005.

4. The Board of Supervisors should support a request from the Environmental Health Services Division to provide sufficient funding to inspect each septic system every three years.

Response: There are 5,267 permitted septic systems in San Mateo County. The current inspection program was developed with input from the Environmental Health Advisory Committee (EHAC). EHAC recommended that septic systems in sensitive watersheds be a priority for the inspection program. The rate of significant problems found during triennial inspections is slightly above 1% in the priority areas and approaches 0% in the non-priority areas. Based on this information, present staffing levels are adequate in addressing the septic systems within sensitive watersheds.

In addition to our inspection program, septic systems are also evaluated on a complaint basis and at the time of property sale; these evaluations increase the number of actual inspections that take place throughout the county.