[Placer County] City of Lincoln should return millions in improperly collected water service fees, Grand Jury says

A Placer County Grand Jury released a report on “City of Lincoln Water Connection Fund” finding fees were improperly collected to the tune of $40+ million and funds were mismanaged.

Blog note: this grand jury report keeps getting attention.

LINCOLN, Calif — A Placer County Grand Jury issued a report Thursday, showing the city of Lincoln ignored rate setting regulations. As a result, the city accumulated a $41-million surplus in the Water Connection Fund (WCF) for the 2018-2019 fiscal year.

The Grand Jury recommends the City of Lincoln returns the fees. They also recommend the city council develop improved oversight of management within the city.

The report concludes "For the past 22 years there has been insufficient city council oversight of the conduct by unelected city officials. As a result, the citizens of Lincoln have been charged unjustified and excessive water connection fees. Such conduct cannot be minimized by the city's assertion of the statute of limitations."

The report largely mirrors a report issued by the California State Auditor in March. That report concluded, "that Lincoln's mismanagement of public funds, insufficient accountability, and inadequate oversight threatens its financial stability."

Jennifer Hanson is the new Lincoln City Manager. She explained the way things had previously worked.

"In the past, any fee that was established had to have a nexus study to establish what the charge of the fee is, and the cost of the fee, and why you're charging it, and who you're charging," explained Hanson. "And the city had historically not completed that study. Essentially, this is one of those long-term Lincoln issues that now needs to be cleaned up."

The nexus study is currently underway. It should be complete sometime in late June. Lincoln resident Chuck Schmidt first raised the issue of water fees.

"I began discussions with the city council members in the fall of 2013 regarding the tiered water rates and the fact that they were illegal," explained Schmidt. "They were against Proposition 218, which is part of our state constitution."

Schmidt said he had many conversations with the city council and the old city manager but he kept hitting a brick wall. He said he was made to believe he didn't know what he was talking about.

Two years ago, Schmidt, Tony Manning and other Lincoln residents founded a neighborhood watchdog group called "Lincolnites for Integrity and Fiscal Transparency" or LIFT. They said, after their issues were repeatedly raised and not addressed, they decided to file a lawsuit. That suit was settled in arbitration and the city was ordered to pay $1.7 million.

Yet Schmidt said the group continued to find more discrepancies as it continued to look into city funds. In 2018, LIFT was able to get then-state Sen. Ted Gaines to call for an audit by the state. The joint legislative audit committee voted unanimously to have the state auditor review the City of Lincoln.

Schmidt said LIFT didn't ask for the review by the Placer County Grand Jury, but he's happy with the results.

"I'm just delighted that it's coming to the attention of our citizens," exclaimed Schmidt.

Tony Manning also responded to the Grand Jury report. 

"It's what we've been saying all along," said Manning. "One of the biggest things I've learned from this entire situation is I've learned the civic lesson of what organizations are out there to help people, that are kind of left with nowhere to go when their city leadership is letting them down... Everything we've been saying, the Grand Jury basically came back and vindicated what we knew all along. That the city had been overcharging its residents to the tune of millions of dollars." 

Now, Manning says refunds are necessary.

"Residents have to get a refund," explained Manning. "There's no other option. Number one, there's no trust in our city right now when you look at our elected officials, right, our incumbent elected officials. The residents don't trust them. The first thing they have to do is restore the trust. The only way they can restore the trust is by giving a refund."

Newly elected councilmember Holly Andreatta said she's working to restore faith.

"My objective, first, is to restore the trust of the people of Lincoln in their elected officials," said Andreatta. "To know that we are being transparent, that we are creating a stable city hall with good financial structure and making good decisions for the betterment of the town."

When asked if it would take a total change of the city council Andreatta responded, saying, "The people need to make their voice heard. So the term for the rest of them [is] coming up in 2020. "Whether they run again, I'm not really sure. It's for the people to say."

May 9, 2019

ABC10.com KXTV

By Mike Duffy

[Placer County] Grand jury report finds that Lincoln overcharged customers for water, Report estimates $41-million surplus

Blog note: this grand jury report is getting a lot of media attention.

The Placer County Grand Jury released its final report May 9 that found the Lincoln Water Connection Fund (WCF) “unlawfully collected water connection fees in excess of its reasonable costs for providing such services.”

The grand jury found that between overcharging homeowners and developers, along with loaning out money to other city funds between 1998 and 2019, the city now has a surplus of $41 million in the Water Connection Fund.

The grand jury came to that number after it found the $26 million in excess funds that the city had, along with $15 million that the city loaned out to other funds.

“My first response was that this is what we have been saying all along,” said Tony Manning, a Lincoln resident and one of the founding members of Lincoln Citizens for Integrity and Fiscal Transparency or L.I.F.T.

Manning was part of the team that originally filed a lawsuit against the city, which evolved into a state audit and then a Placer County Grand Jury report.

“The biggest lessons I’ve learned from this entire situation is that the civic lessons of what organizations are out there to help people who are kind of left with nowhere to go when their city leadership is letting them down and the grand jury is one of those areas,” Manning said.

In 2017, Lincoln changed its rate structure to model that of Placer County Water Agency (PCWA), according to the grand jury report. The city made this change without conducting any studies or hearings with City Council because the change was expected to lower rates.

However, the new rate structure increased rates by approximately 20 percent in some areas, according to the grand jury report.

“The funds were never passed through and they were just collecting the money and we have so much water we don’t need to go buy it,” Lincoln City Manager Jennifer Hanson said.

Again in 2019, the city made changes, this time modifying its water connection fee with Placer County Water Agency without any formal studies because it was again expected to drop rates.

It did drop rates but the rate increases were not amended from the changes in 2017, according to the grand jury report.

Hanson said the reason the city did this in 2019 was “because we were collecting money at such a large rate and staff was getting concerned that we were over-collecting money so we immediately went and did a study to lower the fees.”

Fellow L.I.F.T. founder and Lincoln resident Chuck Schmidt said that “they were well advised that it was illegal but it was passed anyway.”

As for resolutions to this issue, Hanson said that the current Nexus study must be completed before the city knows what to do with the surplus money and that offering refunds is a possible recommendation that City Council can act on.

Hanson said that any refunds would be made from the Water Connection Fund.

“I’m just delighted that it’s coming to the attention of our citizens because, for so long, the city has been hiding these funds,” Schmidt said.

May 9, 2019

Gold Country Media

By Matthew Nobert of The Lincoln News Messenger

Placer County grand jury doubles down on city of Lincoln’s financial missteps

A Placer County grand jury report found the city of Lincoln mismanaged public funds and overcharged residents, echoing findings from a scathing state audit report released two months ago.

Lincoln ignored governing regulations related to water rate-setting, overcharging developers and homeowners, and collecting nearly $41 million in excess in a water connections fund, according to the Wednesday grand jury report. The city “repeatedly failed to conduct required nexus studies to determine reasonable costs” to charge, the report found.

The city also loaned money from the water connections fund to separate accounts “with no assurances that the funds receiving the loans will be capable of repayment,” according to the report, breaking the city’s interfund loan policy.

The grand jury report rehashes some of the extensive concerns raised by the California State Auditor’s office in March, which concluded that years of financial mismanagement “threaten the city’s stability.”

“It’s nothing surprising,” said Lincoln City Manager Jennifer Hanson. The city is “already working” to address concerns issued in the state audit, she said, including overhauling its accounting practices and oversight process.

The grand jury report recommended the city refund residents and developers for overcharges related to its water connections fund.

Whether the city will issue refunds will be determined by the Lincoln City Council, Hanson said, after reviewing a new fees and rates nexus study, which is set to be released by a third-party consultant in June.

May 9, 2019

The Sacramento Bee

By Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks

[Marin County] Letter to the editor: Let’s hold land managers accountable for fuel load

The Marin civil grand jury seems to have done a good job assessing Marin County’s risks associated with wildfires. Several of its recommendations and conclusions, however, are way off.

First, let’s remember that the primary reason we have a wildfire problem in California is due to decades of forest mismanagement by federal, state and local government. For example, the Marin Municipal Water District, which owns 21,500 acres, clears only 30 acres per year. Careless government bureaucracies have allowed this to happen, and it is now their responsibility to fix the problem.

Therefore, a law should be enacted that gives government agencies 18 months to remove the fuel load on their lands and to implement a comprehensive forest management plan.

Let’s start by targeting the biggest offenders: the county of Marin, the MMWD and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. This would be a much more effectve plan than hiring 30 new “vegetation management inspectors” (at an estimated annual cost of $3 million) to rat out homeowners who fail to comply with some draconian new landscaping regulation.

Oh, and if any agency or government entity fails to comply with their requirement to remove the fuel load from their lands, the law would state that the county supervisors and/or agency board members would be held personally liable for the associated costs of compliance.

I think you’d see fire risk fall dramatically if we held our governments accountable for their actions — or lack thereof.

May 8, 2019

Marin Independent Journal

By Chris Hunt, San Anselmo 

[Stanislaus County] Civil Grand Jury: Measure L is a ‘well-oiled machine’

Stanislaus County taxpayers should be happy to hear that a special sales tax review of Measure L found that government agencies are using the funds for exactly what they were intended for — fixing and maintaining local roadways.

Measure L — Local Roads First Transportation Funding — was approved by voters in November 2016 and went into effect April 1, 2017. The 25-year one-half cent special sales tax is to be used exclusively for regional and local transportation, as well as other transit improvements.

The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recently conducted an investigation of Measure L after reading about concerns regarding the use of the special tax dollars.

“Taxpayers often question if government decision-making exists for the benefit of the public; the SCCGJ wondered the same,” states the sales tax review summary.

The grand jury focused its investigation on the Stanislaus Council of Governments (the agency that administers Measure L funds) and three local jurisdictions, including Turlock.

The grand jury’s overall findings were that both StanCOG and local jurisdictions are implementing Measure L as promised to Stanislaus County residents.

“The Stanislaus County Council of Governments is to be commended for the development of a transportation special tax program of which StanCOG, and all of Stanislaus County, can be proud. Measure L is an efficient program that operates like a well-oiled machine and constitutes an important economic benefit to the county,” states the report.

Stanislaus County Supervisor and StanCOG Board member Vito Chiesa has been an advocate for Measure L from the start, as it allows Stanislaus to be designated a Self-Help county when competing for state and federal transportation funding opportunities.

“Seventy-two percent of people wanted their roads fixed, coming in many different forms, but most important was our ability to leverage state and federal funding that we didn’t have before — that’s more than $50 million since its inception,” said Chiesa.

Turlock, which is allocated 15.26 percent of Measure L funds, received $4,386,697 in fiscal year 2017-18. Measure L funds are being used for the reconstruction project currently underway along West Main Street and for the design stage of the Golden State Boulevard rehabilitation project.

While the grand jury found that Measure L funds were being used appropriately, they did have two recommendations for Turlock.

Planning and engineering representatives who were interviewed from Turlock lacked detailed knowledge of Measure L financing and relied on finance departments for information. The grand jury recommends that the personnel managing the planning and engineering of Measure L projects be familiar with the budget and finance portions of the special tax.

The City of Turlock also needs to fulfill a Measure L requirement of posting project progress on a webpage for public transparency. The grand jury gave Turlock until Dec. 31 to create a webpage or a link to a department webpage with the required information.

The Civil Grand Jury is empowered to investigate complaints from citizens, civic groups, government employees and others about the operations of county and city governments and the conduct of their officers and employees. The Civil Grand Jury may also investigate complaints within special districts and school districts.

May 7, 2019

Turlock Journal

By Kristina Hacker

[Lake County] Lakeport City Council to appoint airport commission member, award city hall remodel bid

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.

LAKEPORT — On Tuesday, the Lakeport City Council will consider appointing one of its members to the currently inactive airport land use commission tasked with oversight of the Lampson Field Airport.

According to California law, an airport land use commission must be established in any county where there is an airport and must be comprised of seven members: two county and two city representatives as well as a member of the public and two aviation experts.

Lakeport’s appointment will follow a Lake County Civil Grand Jury interim report released in March that called for county and city governments to bring Lampson Field into compliance with state laws—in part by bringing back to life the Lake County Airport Land Use Commission formed in 2004—in order to apply for grant funds available through the Federal Aviation Administration.

“More than 3 billion dollars in general aviation airport funding is currently available,” the grand jury report states.

District 4 Supervisor Tina Scott and District 5 Supervisor Rob Brown have been appointed to the commission as county government representatives. Clearlake Vice Mayor Russ Cremer has been appointed as that city’s representative.

Lampson Field Airport, though operational, has been identified as a target of needed development in a recent strategic economic plan adopted by county and city governments.

“We’d love to see an active airport,” said Lakeport City Manager Margaret Silveira in an interview Monday. “It’s important to the City of Lakeport as much as to the county.” Silveira added that improvements to the airport would be likely to increase tourism in Lakeport, and would be an added convenience for local businesses.

May 6, 2019

Lake County Record-Bee

By Adian Freeman

[San Benito County] Former grand jury members speak out

The San Benito County Board of Supervisors created an ad hoc committee at its April 16 meeting to consider revising a 2015 ordinance that limits payment for services by the county’s civil grand jury. The committee consisted of Supervisors Mark Medina and Jim Gillio.

In the meeting, former civil grand jury members disagreed sharply with statements made by supervisors and County Administrative Officer Ray Espinosa regarding the grand jury’s budget, compensation guidelines and the county’s authority over the grand jury’s activities. In addition, one supervisor condemned remarks by a former grand juror who spoke about the grand jury’s investigation of Espinosa in 2013.

Discussion was delayed by a dispute among the board about when to break for lunch. Medina said at the start of the meeting that the board would go through as many items as possible before breaking for lunch at noon. Minutes past noon, he said the board would continue with two more items because several members of the public had been waiting for three hours to hear them.

Supervisor Peter Hernandez said since the items would take more than 10 minutes each and because staff also needed to have lunch, the board should break for lunch now.

“Well anyway, we will bring up the grand jury,” Medina said.

Hernandez said he was taking his lunch now and Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz joined him.

Supervisor Anthony Botelho said he had an extra orange for “you guys” as the two supervisors left the dias.

“If they don’t want to be part of this they don’t have to be part of this,” Medina said before Hernandez and De La Cruz left the room.

Several members of the public said that employees had six hours from the start of the shift to take a lunch. Though De La Cruz returned to the dias about seven minutes into the grand jury discussion, Hernandez returned half an hour later.

Discussion between former civil grand jury members and county supervisors centered on the ordinance approved in 2015 that set limits on compensation. The grand jury went over its budget by $5,500 that year, which led to the tighter compensation guidelines.

The civil grand jury is not a county department, but an independent group of 19 volunteers mandated by the California State Constitution to research and investigate government departments, agencies and even officers. Nonetheless, it is funded by the county. The county also sets grand jury compensation rates.

Espinosa said the county adopted the following budgets for past grand juries. Figures include what was spent by each grand jury:

• 2015: $19,500 budgeted; $25,000 spent
• 2016: $20,500 budgeted; $11,000 spent
• 2017: $21,00 budgeted; $4,000 spent
• 2018: $22,200 budgeted; $4,800 spent
• 2019: $22,000 budgeted; $3,100 spent

Espinosa said the existing compensation guidelines are almost identical to those of Santa Cruz County at $15 a day per member, with a maximum of eight days per month where members get paid only where there is a quorum.

“Ours is very similar with regards to the whole grand jury in attendance, as an example, but we don’t have a limitation on the amount of days,” he said.

Robert Marden, foreman of the 2014-15 San Benito County Civil Grand Jury, said Espinosa’s presentation was inaccurate. San Benito was the only county in California that did not pay for committee work, he said.

Peggy Flynn, forewoman of the current Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury, told BenitoLink that jurors are paid for a maximum of two meetings a week and that normally at least one of them is a committee meeting.

Marden, who is on the BenitoLink board, read part of a 1993 opinion by California Attorney General Dan Lungren on compensation for grand jury members: “The government code section 68091 allows each county to provide compensation for grand jurors while attending other than grand jury sessions of the entire membership.”

Following adoption of the 2015 ordinance, San Benito County Superior Court was forced to subpoena residents to participate on the civil grand jury, which Marden said made it more difficult to find willing jurors.

Ann Ross, forewoman of the 2015-16 San Benito County Civil Grand Jury, said the body’s budget should be in the $30,000s.

“It’s hands-off by the County Board of Supervisors,” Ross told supervisors at the meeting. “All you’re supposed to do is give us the money and that’s it. You don’t get to say anything else about when we meet, how we meet.”

Former grand juror Bill Healy said that Espinosa “put us under” because when the grand jury investigated him in 2013, they found out he was not qualified for the position because he had lied about having a bachelor’s degree.

Responses by the county to the report can be found here.

Before Healy could continue, De La Cruz interrupted his public comment and asked Medina not to allow Healy to “talk personal.”

“To accuse our staff members of doing this and doing that, I won’t accept that,” De La Cruz said as he addressed the concerns of the former grand jurors. “The Board of Supervisors makes the call and the Board of Supervisors get the blame or the credit for the actions that the county does at the board level. Don’t go after staff. That’s not right.”

When Healy resumed speaking, he said the issue wasn’t about the members getting money because they make $30 a month and mileage if they meet twice a month; instead it was about supporting and respecting the grand jury which acts as the “check and balance of this county.” According to previous statements from current grand jury member Cherie Toll, jurors have not been paid even though they have held monthly meetings since July and conducted at least four investigations.

Both Botelho and De La Cruz said they did not want to control or hurt the grand jury, but were holding all the “departments” to the same standard of operating within budget—this despite the fact that the grand jury is not a county department, but an independent state-mandated body.

Botelho told BenitoLink the board understands that the grand jury is not a county department, but that it needs to keep to its budget.

“If there’s something that changes let’s talk about it long before it becomes an issue,” Botelho said. “We’re keeping tabs of how we spend the taxpayers’ money.”

After returning from his lunch break, Hernandez joined the discussion and said he appreciated the grand jury, its intent and role, but that he struggled with its structure.

“How do you fund something that you don’t know how it functions,” Hernandez said, adding that supervisors need to understand how grand jurors manage their time in order to come up with the budget.

Ross told BenitoLink after the meeting that there was no need for bickering because supervisors only needed to reverse the ordinance. She said the the solution involves granting the grand jury essentials like a confidential office; a mailbox and supplies; payment of $20 per meeting; no interference from the county and the posting of all grand jury reports on the county website including responses (these documents have disappeared from the website in the past).

May 3, 2019

BenitoLink

By Noe Magaña

[Monterey County] County commits to reducing mental illness in jail

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.

SALINAS — Monterey County has signed onto a nationwide effort to addressing the high numbers of mentally ill inmates in the County Jail.

On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution joining the nationwide Stepping Up Initiative coalition dedicated to the cause, entitled “Stepping Up to Reduce the Number of People with Mental Illnesses in Jails.”

The resolution commits the county, led by the County Administrative Office, Sheriff’s Office, and the Probation and Health Departments, to a “call to action” that includes “sharing lessons” learned from other counties in the state and nationally in support of the national initiative, as well as using “comprehensive resources” available through the Stepping Up Initiative.

According to the resolution, an estimated 2 million people with “serious” mental illnesses are booked into jails nationally every year, three-quarters of them with substance use disorders, and the rate of mental illness is three to six times higher in jails than for the general public. It also points out that county jails spend two or three times as much on adults with mental illnesses than other inmates, and people with mental illnesses tend to end up cycling through the criminal justice system if they don’t have access to treatment and services.

The resolution calls for the county to convene a “diverse” team of area leaders to pursue safe reduction of mentally ill in the jail, collect and review data and assess individual needs to “better identify” adults entering the jail with mental illnesses and their recidivism risk to help guide decision-making, examine local treatment and service capacity and identify state and local policy and funding barriers, develop a plan with measurable outcomes, implement research-based approaches to advancing the plan, and create a process for tracking progress.

It notes the County Jail has already implemented a number of changes aimed at improving mental health services, largely in response to a 2013 class action lawsuit settlement, including with regard to intake screening, suicide risk assessment and mitigation, reduction is the use of safety cells, development of individual treatment plans, medication continuity, mental health clinical staffing levels, and mental health training.

The jail has also undergone a hazard reduction project to reduce jumping or falling locations in high-risk inmate housing areas, and increased time outside of cells, individual program time, group therapy, self-help and socialization skills for high-risk inmates, according to the resolution.

Supervisor Luis Alejo noted the 2016-17 civil grand jury addressed the issue of mental health in the jail in a report entitled “Monterey County Jail Crisis: Our De Facto Mental Health Facility,” which looked into the class action lawsuit challenging conditions in the jail and the resulting changes in the facility.

The grand jury found that about 45 percent of jail inmates deal with mental illness. It recommended the county fund construction of a new mental health facility or find space to serve as a mental health treatment site, and that the county Behavioral Health agency’s services be integrated into the jail rather than relying on independent contractor California Forensic Medical Group.

Supervisor John Phillips, a former Superior Court judge, said defendants with mental illness were the “most difficult” cases and tended to cycle through the court system many times because treatment services were inadequate. Phillips said it was good to see the Sheriff’s Office and Health Department working together on the issue.

Supervisor Chris Lopez, who serves on the county’s Behavioral Health Commission, noted that May is Mental Health Awareness month.

April 30, 2019

Monterey Herald

By Jim Johnson

Nevada County Grand Jury Report: Nevada County Request for Proposal and Procurement Practices

April 30, 2019 – The 2018-2019 Nevada County Grand Jury (Jury) responded to a citizen’s complaint “regarding irregularities in the recent Request for Proposal (RFP) and the selection process for the organization selected to operate the County’s animal shelter.” The Jury conducted an investigation into Nevada County’s (County) RFP process used to select the vendor cited in the complaint. The Jury reviewed pertinent documents and conducted interviews with personnel within County government and the Sheriff’s Office.

During its investigation of the RFP process, the Jury found a number of problems to support its overall conclusion that the County’s procurement practices are not consistent with generally recognized best procurement practices. After conducting several interviews, the Jury determined there was a lack of communication and coordination among the various departments involved with an animal control RFP. The Jury learned that the County does not have comprehensive established policies and procedures regulating its procurement process. Instead the County relies on a Purchasing Guide, dated June 13, 2017; an undated amendment to that Purchasing Guide; and the County Administrative Code (Admin Code). The Jury’s investigation shows that these publications combined with the Admin Code do not adhere to generally available best procurement practices.

The Jury concluded that an adherence to generally recognized best procurement practices by the purchasing department would ensure that County procurement is performed honestly, fairly, effectively, and professionally. In turn, this ensures that best value is obtained and that the County recognizes that the public trust is embodied in the authority to expend County funds. Efforts are underway within Information & General Services (IGS) to update the Admin Code to include policies and procedures that adhere to best procurement practices. The Jury commends this effort. However, the success of this program depends on the support of the Nevada County County Executive Office, County Counsel, and the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. Without this support IGS will not be able to implement any meaningful changes in a timely manner.

April 30, 2019

YubaNet.com

By the Nevada County Civil Grand Jury

Santa Clara County expands mobile mental-health teams to public

On-call clinicians will staff hotline, provide services

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.

After first helping local police respond more effectively to mental-health emergencies and head off violent outcomes, Santa Clara County’s mobile-crisis response teams are expanding to handle crises reported by the general public.

The county’s Behavioral Health Services Department announced Monday that its squad of on-call clinicians will now also staff a hotline where they can triage psychiatric emergencies and “provide services in the community including crisis screening, intervention, de-escalation services, and connect or refer people to community resources,” according to a county news release.

County officials also revealed that staffing for the mobile-crisis program now stands at seven licensed clinicians and therapists, an increase from four last fall, which at that time had doubled from two when the pilot program launched in January 2018.

County residents in need of mental-health crisis help and intervention can call 800-704-0900 and dial option “2” on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Outside those hours, emergencies reported to the hotline will be answered by a clinician but not necessarily a mobile-crisis team.

The program was initially launched to support county law-enforcement agencies seeking help in dealing with mental-health emergencies that prompted a 911 call and a police response. Both statewide estimates and a civil grand jury report issued last year estimated that nearly 40 percent of police shootings in the county involved a person who exhibited signs of mental illness.

In tandem with the launch of the clinician response teams, two of which are dedicated to the San Jose area and southern Santa Clara County, local police agencies have instituted an increasing amount of crisis-intervention training — usually involving about 40 hours of instruction — given an increasing amount of police calls involve a mental-health emergency.

The county is also using grant money to establish a Psychological Emergency Response Team in Palo Alto that pairs a police officer and clinician to respond to mental-health incidents with teens and other young adults.

April 29, 2019

The Mercury News

By Robert Salonga