Contra Costa County 2006-2007 - California Grand Jury Reports

F1: The Board of Supervisors (“Board”) and County Administrator have identified four key County goals. The goals are far-reaching and challenging and are summarized under the following four groupings: • Improved fiscal health • Improved service delivery • Build the organization and team • Foster credibility and public education

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: The County should develop a multi-year strategic plan for: • Setting County direction • Establishing priorities • Communicating to stakeholders This plan should be updated at least annually so all stakeholders are informed about the County’s goals and objectives, progress towards both, and changes in priorities.

F2: Contra Costa County does not have a formal, multi-year strategic plan to guide the County in a coordinated direction, to measure progress towards goals and objectives, and to take corrective actions when necessary.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: Within two years of this report, the County should develop a strategic plan that incorporates the following key elements: • Setting the direction: vision, mission and guiding principles -organizational (e.g., personnel, financial performance, operating departments) -programmatic (e.g., public safety, health / welfare, economic develop- ment, transportation) • Assessing the environment and changes in the County -County participants (e.g., Board of Supervisors, County Administrator, department heads, employees, and unions) -Constituent participants (e.g., community leaders, residents and principle users of County services) • Identifying issues, strategic initiatives, and priorities -County management (e.g., Board of Supervisors, County Administrator, and department heads) • Developing and implementing the plan -Special planning group from County management team • Monitoring and evaluating the performance goals, objectives and actions -Special planning group from County management team

F3: The County does not have a mechanism or process to solicit, change, or prioritize countywide goals and initiatives relative to its changing environment and needs. Input from department heads and employees are not documented. Further, there is no systematic mechanism to capture suggestions from community leaders, residents, and principle users of County services.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: The County Administrator also should develop a standardized performance appraisal form, including consistent elements to the greatest extent possible, with supportive processes for all remaining County employees.

F4: The Board and County Administrator do not have a formal mechanism for communicating a County plan and vision to all stakeholders. The County has more than 28 diverse departments in its organizational structure, many with their own mission, vision, and sets of priorities. There is no formal medium to periodically update the direction of the County as a whole. Instead, the County relies on informal updates through periodic bulletins, newspaper editorials and articles, and public access television.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R4: The County Administrator should develop a mechanism for reporting by department on the timeliness and completeness of County performance evaluations.

F5: The County’s Internet website is a key method of communicating to Contra Costa stakeholders. It supplements newspaper editorials, articles, bulletins, and public access television. The County’s website does not include an overall plan or vision, or set of priorities. The website’s “County Performance Reports” section provides some insights into departmental responsibilities, accomplishments, and challenges. However, the descriptions are lengthy, and “text heavy”. The “Government Performance Report” section is out-of-date and does not reflect the County’s financial experience over the past four years. The “County Budget Processes” section is also out-of-date relative to current financial information. 3

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: The County Administrator should direct the Human Resources Department to monitor and evaluate the administration of the employee performance evaluation program and recommend corrective actions where appropriate. 6

F6: In April 2007, the County’s Human Resources Department surveyed most of the department heads to determine the dates of their last formal performance evaluations. Fifteen of the 20 department heads that responded had not had a performance evaluation within the past 12 months. One of the 15 had not been reviewed in six years, and six had not received a formal review since they assumed their duties.

F7: The County Administrator is responsible for facilitating department head performance evaluations directly, or in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors. The County Administrator also is responsible for ensuring that all County employees receive departmental performance evaluations on an annual basis. The County Administrator is responsible for conducting performance evaluations for the seven staff members who report directly to him, and for reviewing evaluations for the rest of his department. 5

F8: During the County’s annual budget review process, the Board and the County Administrator meet with most department heads. This budget review time is also used to discuss performance expectations and progress toward achieving their respective goals and objectives.

F9: Each department defines and manages their respective employee performance evaluation programs with only limited guidance from the County’s Human Resources Department.

F10: Performance evaluations are not consistently administered across all departments.

F11: The County does not have a mechanism to track the timeliness, completeness, and effectiveness of employee performance reviews.

F12: Over the past five years, the number of professional services contracts has increased by approximately one-third.

F13: One professional services contract has been renewed consecutively over 34 years. 8

June 12, 2007 — Mayday, Mayday, Mayday! the County Drifts Ever Closer to the “opeb” Rocks Growing Retiree Health Care Costs Demand

8 páginas 26 hallazgos 7 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 26 hallazgos

F1: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has the responsibility to resolve the County’s unfunded OPEB liability issues.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R7: Adopt a comprehensive OPEB management plan. The plan should be a formal, multi-year plan that would provide a guide and communication vehicle for the Board of Supervisors, County employees and County residents over the next 30 years of the initiative. This plan should include, but not be limited to the following: • Specific goals and objectives. • Due diligence on the issues, options and implications. • Selected economic and census assumptions and rationales that are both realistic and fair. • Selected benefit redesigns, reductions and cost containments, and respective phase-in periods. • Selected funding levels for Annual Required Contribution to systematically fund the liability. • Description and conditions of an irrevocable trust that funds the OPEB liability. • Actions and conditions that pre-fund a portion of the liability with OPEB bonds, if appropriate. • General schedule of employee and resident communication forums and information sessions.

F2: In April 2001, an independent actuarial firm report to the County identified the unfunded OPEB liability for County retirees.

F3: The subject of the unfunded OPEB liability has been the topic of three previous Contra Costa County Grand Jury reports: • Report No. 0404, “Take Action Now to Reduce Costs of Retiree Health Insurance” issued in 2004. • Report No. 0508, “Code Blue: County Health Care Costs” issued in 2005. • Report No. 0606, “County Ignores Retiree Health Costs: The Financial Tidal Wave” issued in 2006.

F4: In 2006, an outside consultant hired by the County issued a report that suggested the County set aside $216 million annually for the next 30 years to close the unfunded health care obligation gap.

F5: In April 2007, the Board of Supervisors gave preliminary approval to a fiscal year 2007-08 budget that provides only $33 million (vs. $216 million) to cover the cost of health care benefits for the County’s retirees and their eligible dependents.

F6: The County provides combined medical and dental plan benefits to active employees, qualified retirees, and dependents of both groups. The County subsidizes most of the health care insurance premiums at rates varying from 80% to 98% for the medical plans and from 78% to 98% for the dental plans.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: Negotiate with collective bargaining units, and implement for non-represented County employees, stricter health care benefit plan options to help stabilize current costs and limit future open ended obligations. Plan changes should consider more limited coverage, increased premium sharing by retired employees, a cap on the County’s premium contributions, increased patient deductibles and co-payments and reduced annual and/or lifetime maximums. 7

F7: The County provides combined medical and dental plan benefits to approximately 7,800 active employees, 4,200 retirees, 330 surviving spouses of retirees and 16,000 reported dependent spouses, children and domestic partners for active and 3 retired employees. Approximately 28,000 individuals currently rely on the County for employment related health care benefits.

F8: Health care coverage for County retirees is a benefit of employment earned during employment and largely paid for by the County after retirement.

F9: The County does not currently require retirees to secure Medicare Part B medical coverage once they reach Medicare-eligible age, but allows them to continue to rely on the County’s medical and dental health benefit plans available to active employees as their primary coverage.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R1: Identify the County’s legal obligation to provide medical and dental care to retired employees and to what extent the obligation can be modified for active employees and retirees.

R4: Require all Medicare eligible retirees to secure Medicare Part B medical coverage and assign their Medicare benefits to the County’s health plan carriers.

F10: County deputy sheriffs, firefighters, and their dependents are not covered by the County’s medical and dental plans. These “safety” employees participate in the California Public Employees Retirement System (“CalPERS”) medical and dental plans under the terms of their labor contracts with enrollment conditions set by CalPERS. The County subsidizes the CalPERS insurance premiums at a rate comparable to that paid on behalf of other County employees.

F11: Like many other public employers, the County reports the cost of retiree health benefits in their “Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports” during the employee’s retirement years when the health insurance benefits are received by the retiree (cash basis, also known as “pay-as-you-go” or “PAYGO”), rather than during the employee’s active service when the benefits are earned (accrual basis).

F12: Retiree medical benefit costs, using the PAYGO basis of accounting, have been growing at approximately 15%, compounded annually, for the last five years - growing from $15.9 million in fiscal year 2001-02 to $32.4 million for the current fiscal year 2006-07. This growth is more than double the rate of overall County expenditures and two-and-a-half times faster than revenue growth over the same period.

F13: Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 45 (“GASB 45”), “Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post-Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions,” sets an accounting standard analogous to the governmental pension accounting standard. This standard requires the calculation and disclosure of an unfunded liability for government employee retiree health care benefits similar to the method already in place for recognizing the cost of government employee pensions.

F14: GASB 45 accounting standards become effective with the County’s fiscal year 2007-08, which begins July 1, 2007. Under these standards, the County must: • Disclose the unfunded liability for health benefits (and other post- employment benefits other than pensions, that continue to be disclosed separately) that have been earned by all active and retired employees. 4 • To the extent they remain unfunded, increase its annual health care benefit cost to include the normal cost of benefits as they are earned, plus an amount that amortizes (funds over time on a systematic basis) the unfunded liability over a period not to exceed 30 years. • Disclose the County funding policy for medical and dental benefits earned by active and retired employees to date and report this resulting liability.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: Establish an irrevocable trust for OPEB benefits and mandate a policy that requires the current normal cost and an amount to amortize the unfunded liability annually, over a period not to exceed 30 years. Select a realistic discount rate reflecting the earning capability of the investment pool (discount rate) that will be met or exceeded 50 percent of the time.

F15: An independent actuarial firm hired by the County analyzed the County’s OPEB unfunded liability as of January 1, 2006 using two discount rate assumptions: (1) 4.5%, which relates to the current PAYGO method and (2) 7.9% which reflects the economics of a funded trust plan based on GASB 45. The results follow: Contra Costa County Retiree Health Care Costs (Dollars in Millions) Annual Required Contribution3 Discount Unfunded Liability Normal Total Rate1 Liability2 Amortization4 Cost5 Contribution6 4.5 % $2,571 $86 $130 $216 7.9 % 1,425 48 55 103 Notes: 1) Discount rate is the annual rate by which future payments are adjusted to reflect the current value of the obligation; 2) Unfunded liability refers to the total current value of a stream of future payments for which money has not been set aside; 3) Annual Required Contribution consists of the Normal Cost plus a portion of the total unfunded accrued actuarial liability amortization for the year; 4) Liability Amortization is the annual payment necessary to pay off a specific liability over a fixed period of time, in this case 30 years; 5) Normal cost is amount necessary to meet the current expense of the benefit earned during the period regardless of when the amount will be paid; and 6) Total Contribution consists of the Liability Amortization and Normal Costs.

F16: Options to address the OPEB liability discussed to date by the County’s consultant and County staff in public meetings include: • Continue the current PAYGO funding method that will minimize the short-term budget impact but will have long-term budget implications as deferred health care benefit costs continue to accelerate and current costs, earned by active employees, are added to the liability. • Modify the existing medical and dental benefit plans by changing eligibility requirements, coverage amounts, deductibles, co-pays, co- insurance, changing the amount the County contributes towards coverage and the separation of the health care costs incurred by the active employees and retired participants. • Establish and partially pre-fund an irrevocable trust that will enable the County to reduce reported liability and Annual Required Contribution by 5 allowing the County to use a higher discount rate. (An irrevocable trust is a separate legal entity created to hold assets dedicated to meeting the obligations to the entitled beneficiaries of the trust.) • Combining options by modifying the current health care plans and conditions of retirement coverage plus partially pre-funding the existing liability using an irrevocable trust.

F17: Creating an irrevocable trust to secure the pre-funded assets against other uses, and funding it annually, would minimize the reported liability and reduce the required minimum annual amortization amount.

F18: The County does not currently have a separate irrevocable trust for paying retiree health benefits.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R6: Consider pre-funding a portion of the irrevocable trust with proceeds from OPEB obligation bonds.

F19: According to the “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report” as of June 30, 2006, the County’s debt limit (five percent of valuations subject to taxation) was $6.6 billion. The total amount of debt applicable to the debt limit was $0.7 billion, net of assets in the debt service funds and other deductions allowed by law. This would enable the County to issue an additional $5.9 billion of debt.

F20: The County has issued pension obligation bonds to lock in interest rates significantly below the discount rate used by the Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Association Trust, thereby reducing the annual payment due from the County. As of June 30, 2006, $667 million of pension obligation bonds were still outstanding. The history of previous successful pension obligation bond issues follows: • In 1994, the County issued $337 million in taxable pension obligation bonds. • In 2001, the County restructured these bonds with a new issue in the amount of $107 million. • In April 2003, the County issued $323 million in taxable pension obligation bonds. • In July 2005, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District issued $130 million in taxable pension obligation bonds.

F21: Federal and state reimbursements for mandated services (e.g., health and social) provided by the County account for approximately 55% of the County’s total operating budget. Federal and state guidelines that establish the principles and standards for allowable reimbursements include some pre-funding costs. However, the extent to which pre-funded health benefit costs are reimbursable by the federal and state governments has not yet been formalized.

F22: Credit rating agencies have indicated that management of the retiree health care liability will influence credit ratings for public agencies. Contra Costa County, 6 like other counties, cities and special districts, and even states, are likewise required to report unfunded OPEB liability, if they follow GASB 45.

F23: An outside consultant hired by the County has advised that the credit rating agencies will look favorably on public agencies that develop mitigation plans and demonstrate progress in implementing those plans to address the OPEB liability.

F24: County employees, other than safety employees (deputy sheriffs and firefighters), employed on or after January 1, 2007, must have worked for the County for 15 years, and have retired directly from the County, to receive retiree health care benefits.

F25: The County does not segregate the costs of medical and dental plan coverage for active employees and retirees. Instead, it combines or “pools” the costs for both groups and calculates a common or “blended” premium rate that is applied to all eligible parties. This has the effect of masking the higher health care costs for retirees and means the active employees, with their relatively lower health care requirements, subsidize a portion of the higher cost of providing benefits to retirees.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: Segregate active and retiree health insurance pools to allow more accurate recognition of actual costs attributed to the respective participant groups to better manage future medical and dental plan costs.

F26: When Medicare Part B medical benefits are assigned to the County’s insurance carriers, Medicare becomes the primary provider, leaving the County responsible only as a secondary provider. Retirees covered by Medicare are given credit for Medicare Part B premiums they pay directly to Social Security. Medicare health benefits are not uniformly assigned to the County’s health plan carriers to help pay for the participants’ medical care. The current coverage rules result in higher costs being absorbed by the County.

May 24, 2007 — The West County Fire Protection Montage Is the Inter-Agency Emergency Response Model Meeting Expectations?

9 páginas 30 hallazgos 9 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 30 hallazgos

F1: The five-member elected County Board of Supervisors is the governing body of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. San Pablo and nearby unincorporated areas, including much of El Sobrante, are within the jurisdiction of CCCFPD.

F2: The nine-member elected Richmond City Council is the governing body of the Richmond Fire Department.

F3: The Kensington Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member elected board. By contract, the El Cerrito Fire Department provides emergency services to the Kensington district as well as to the City of El Cerrito; El Cerrito is governed by a five-member City Council. The five-member elected Pinole City Council is the governing body of the Pinole Fire Department. The five-member elected board of the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District is the governing body of the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Department. The Crockett-Carquinez Fire District has a volunteer fire department.

F4: By agreement with CCCFPD, the Pinole and El Cerrito Fire Departments provide fire protection and emergency medical response to their respective cities and to adjacent unincorporated areas. Automatic Aid

F5: All West County fire protection agencies, with the exception of Richmond from 2002 to 2006, automatically respond to fire or medical emergency calls without regard for geographic or jurisdictional boundaries. By long-standing agreement among these agencies, the closest engines respond to calls. This system is referred to as “automatic aid.” Automatic aid is distinguished from “mutual aid,” which requires the agency where the call originated to evaluate the situation, and then call for help from adjoining departments, a process that takes additional time. Some of the West County automatic aid agreements are not in writing.

F6: In all West County departments, an engine company is made up of a captain, an engineer, and a firefighter. Medical

F7: Excluding non-emergency calls, approximately 90% of calls to West County departments are for medical emergencies rather than fires.

F8: One member of each Richmond fire engine company is also an emergency medical technician (“EMT”). EMTs have completed a minimum of 120 hours of classroom and clinical training, and hold an EMT license. The County’s ambulance franchisee, American Medical Response, responds to Richmond calls with its paramedics, but fire engines usually arrive first.

F9: Other than Richmond, all other West County engine companies include a paramedic. Unlike EMTs, paramedics have completed a minimum of 1,100 hours of classroom and clinical training, involving supervised experience in an ambulance, and are trained in advanced life support protocols, including cardiac, and drug administration.

F10: The County Emergency Medical Services agency (“EMS”) provides a $30,000 annual subsidy for each engine company with a paramedic. For the past two years, the EMS has been holding Richmond’s subsidy. These funds, which now total approximately $360,000, could be used by Richmond to help with the start- up costs for providing paramedic services.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: That Richmond implement a plan within six months of this report to hire paramedic firefighters, and/or provide paramedic training for some of its firefighters, with a goal of staffing each of its engine companies with a paramedic. 8

F11: When other departments respond to calls in Richmond, they arrive with paramedics, but when Richmond responds to calls in neighboring areas, they do so without paramedics. First Response

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F12: Typically, the first response to a structure fire call includes three engines--two pumpers with hand tools and medical supplies, a truck with ladder and heavy tools, and a battalion chief. Because of their modest size, all West County fire 4 departments are dependent on each other for assistance with structure fires and other large blazes.

F13: Richmond personnel and equipment respond to fire and emergency calls in CCCFPD’s jurisdiction twice as often as CCCFPD responds into Richmond.

F14: Richmond and CCCFPD respond to alarms differently. If the request for aid comes from a fire alarm instead of from an individual’s call, CCCFPD sends only one engine company. This policy results from the number of false alarms. All other West County departments, including Richmond, send three engines and a truck to all structural fire calls or alarms. Communications

F15: The CCCFPD, Pinole, and Rodeo-Hercules fire departments use a very high frequency (“VHF”) radio communications system. Richmond, El Cerrito, and Kensington use an 800-megahertz system (“800 MHz”). All West County engines can communicate on either system; firefighters use the system on which the call originated.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R3: That Richmond and CCCFPD participate in the inter-operability studies currently underway, or any that may be undertaken, with the goal of improving inter- agency communications for use in the event of large-scale public emergencies.

R4: That Richmond and Contra Costa County budget the funds necessary to implement the recommendations resulting from the inter-operability studies done pursuant to Recommendation #3 or otherwise.

F16: Each communication system, VHF and 800 MHz, has its respective technical advantages and disadvantages, with neither being markedly superior to the other. Having more than one system is not necessarily a shortcoming since redundancy could be vital if one system suffers an outage.

F17: All engine companies in the County, and most throughout the state, can communicate with each other using the VHF system. Most mutual aid situations are handled using VHF.

F18: An East Bay taskforce has been studying “inter-operability;” i.e., police and fire communications in Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Resulting

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R4: That Richmond and Contra Costa County budget the funds necessary to implement the recommendations resulting from the inter-operability studies done pursuant to Recommendation #3 or otherwise.

F19: The Richmond police and fire communications staff dispatches Richmond, El Cerrito and Kensington fire personnel. Richmond also dispatches many law enforcement agencies operating in West County. CCCFPD dispatches fire companies only, including Pinole, Rodeo-Hercules, and Crockett.

F20: When Richmond dispatchers are busy with police calls, there can be a delay in dispatching fire engines. A delay of even a few minutes can lead to the loss of life 5 and/or property, since within six or seven minutes, the interior temperature can rise until the entire space is engulfed in flames. Automatic Vehicle Locator

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: That Richmond complete its study of the AVL system, and join the AVL system within six months of this report.

F21: The location of each West County fire engine is tracked by satellite using a system called Automatic Vehicle Locator (“AVL”). The AVL system is subsidized by voter-approved Measure H funds (a $10 per parcel property tax). Funds are administered by the County Emergency Medical Services agency. When a call for aid is received by CCCFPD, the engines expected to arrive in the shortest time based on their AVL location are dispatched. However, since Richmond dispatchers do not use AVL, firefighters assigned to the nearest station are dispatched, regardless of engine location. This has occasionally resulted in some delays. Financial Support

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: That Richmond complete its study of the AVL system, and join the AVL system within six months of this report.

F22: Each West County fire department is dependent on its governing body for funding, and therefore funding varies among the agencies.

F23: Historically, the San Pablo Fire District included the incorporated city of San Pablo and some adjoining unincorporated areas. In 1975, the San Pablo Fire District was annexed with the El Sobrante Fire District into the West County Fire District. This consolidated district was dissolved in 1994 and became part of the CCCFPD. As a result of the post-Proposition 13 tax allocations, the area formerly covered by the San Pablo District contributes only about one-third of its costs of operation, equipment, and capital needs.

F24: San Pablo’s Redevelopment Agency encourages real estate development. Yet, while fire agencies are charged with protecting new developments, the tax increases generated by the developments go to the Redevelopment Agency. Some of the new tax increases are passed through to CCCFPD by negotiation or by statute, but they are insufficient to support the city’s needs related to fire and medical emergency protection.

F25: The CCCFPD’s single engine company located in San Pablo is the busiest in the County, and one of the busiest in California. It has three firefighters on duty at any given time, who respond to a population in excess of 35,000 people. Three firefighters are not sufficient to fight a structure fire, so in every case, the occupants, contents, and structure are at risk until firefighting crews and equipment arrive from other departments in West County.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R8: That Contra Costa County, within six months of this report, publish, and within one year adopt, a plan to increase from one to two engine companies within the city or environs of San Pablo.

F26: In West County, El Cerrito and Kensington maintain a ratio of one firefighter for every 3,400 in population. Richmond’s ratio is about one for 5,300. Pinole and Rodeo-Hercules maintain one for every 6,000 people. The San Pablo station would require two more engine companies to match Richmond’s ratio. Meanwhile, it falls to the agencies adjoining the San Pablo area to answer calls on a regular basis in San Pablo and environs.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R8: That Contra Costa County, within six months of this report, publish, and within one year adopt, a plan to increase from one to two engine companies within the city or environs of San Pablo.

F27: The CCCFPD engine company in San Pablo is housed in temporary structures. It is inadequate to house an additional truck or engine, and another engine company.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R9: That Contra Costa County, within six months of this report, publish, and within one year adopt, a plan for fire station construction in San Pablo which will provide adequate housing for at least two engines and crews.

F28: Richmond terminated its automatic aid agreement with CCCFPD, effective August 1, 2002. The initial reasons given by Richmond were that the assumption of control of two El Sobrante stations by CCCFPD, and CCCFPD’s refusal to utilize Richmond’s 800 MHz radio, were somehow “unsafe.” Later, Richmond claimed it was financially subsidizing CCCFPD, by virtue of its need to respond to an excess number of calls in and around San Pablo, along with dispatching greater numbers of personnel and equipment to the emergency scene. Automatic aid was resumed in July 2006 based upon a written one-year agreement. The agreement requires the agency responding more often to the other agency’s calls to reimburse that agency based on an hourly formula that includes the number of firefighters dispatched.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R1: That agreements to respond across agency boundaries be put in writing.

R6: That Contra Costa County and Richmond, within six months of this report, enter into a long-term agreement that will fairly compensate for the net difference in cost of emergency responses across Richmond’s city limit lines.

F29: In 2007, San Pablo agreed to reimburse CCCFPD up to $180,000 annually for fire and medical emergency service costs incurred within the city, because of the formula in CCCFPD’s written agreement with Richmond. CCCFPD has agreed to augment this sum with up to $70,000 annually, such funds available for reimbursement to Richmond.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R7: That Contra Costa County and San Pablo, within six months of this report, enter into an agreement that will provide that San Pablo pay the approximate net difference in costs of automatic aid responses into the city by other agencies.

F30: Consolidation of all West County fire departments has been studied a number of times, but never adopted. Currently there is not sufficient political support for a total consolidation. Most of the perceived benefits of consolidation can be accomplished by agreements among the West County departments, as has been done so successfully for the coverage of geographic areas. CONCLUSIONS West County firefighting professionals have identified a number of areas they believe are in need of correction. However, the Grand Jury concludes that most are either being addressed by the professionals, or that the means to resolve them are available.

May 17, 2007 — Report on the Inspection of Detention Facilities in Contra Costa County

4 páginas 10 hallazgos 5 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos

F1: Facilities inspected by the Grand Jury included: a. County Detention Facilities – Martinez, West County (Richmond), and Marsh Creek (Clayton). b. Superior Court Temporary Holding Facilities – Martinez, Pittsburg, Richmond, and Walnut Creek. c. Probation Department – Juvenile Hall (Martinez), Chris Adams Center (Martinez), and the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (The Byron Boy’s Ranch). d. City Jails – Antioch, El Cerrito, Hercules, Kensington, Lafayette, Martinez, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek. 2

F2: Grand Jury inspections of the above-mentioned facilities were conducted in accordance with California Corrections Standards Authority guidelines. California Corrections Standards Authority regulations are contained in Title 15 and Title 24, California Code of Regulations.

F3: County detention facility inspections (Martinez, West County, and Marsh Creek) included a review of common incident reports, grievance procedures, inmate requests for information, medical care practices, telephone and visiting procedures, and adherence to “72-hour requirement” for court hearings. Performance in all areas was found to be satisfactory. Site visits also included selected interviews with detainees to identify any areas of concern. None were identified.

F4: A review was made of the Inmate Welfare Fund-Canteen Program for the County Detention Facilities. The administration of the fund and program are consistent with the goals and objectives set forth by the oversight board. The operation of the fund includes appropriate and effective management controls and practices.

F5: A review of the circumstances surrounding, and subsequent internal investigation of, two “Deaths in Custody” at the Martinez Detention Facility in 2006 led to the conclusion that procedures followed by the detention staff were consistent with CSA standards.

F6: The Office of the Sheriff (“Sheriff”) plans to remodel the women’s holding area within the intake section in the Martinez Detention Facility to improve security.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: The Sheriff should implement the plan to remodel the women’s holding area within the intake section of the Martinez Detention Facility.

F7: Modifications are underway in the Martinez Detention Facility to secure all movable housing unit furniture to the floor or to adjacent stationary objects to reduce vandalism and to discourage its use as weapons. To date, four of six housing modules have been so modified.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: The Sheriff should complete the project to secure all movable furniture to the floor or to adjacent stationary objects in the Martinez Detention Facility housing units to avoid vandalism and to discourage its use as weapons.

F8: The West County Detention Facility has experienced plumbing problems in several detainee housing unit showers. These problems were reported to the County General Services Department more than six months ago and corrections have not been made.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: The Sheriff should insist that the General Services Department promptly repair the shower plumbing problems in the affected West County Detention Facility housing units.

F9: The West County Detention Facility’s security cameras offer only fixed views. Staff members are unable to modify their fields of view to focus on selected areas or individuals of interest outside of the cameras’ current fixed views.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R4: The Sheriff should replace the West County Detention Facility’s current fixed-view security cameras with new units that will allow staff members to modify their fields of view as required.

F10: The floor covering immediately adjacent to the jail cell area in the Richmond Superior Court Holding facility was found to be in need of replacement. Repair or refinishing does not appear to be a viable option. CONCLUSION All of the facilities inspected were found to meet or exceed the minimum inspection standards established by the State of California Corrections Standards Authority.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: The Sheriff should follow-up with the General Services Department to accomplish the replacement of the floor covering immediately adjacent to the jail cells in the Richmond Superior Court Holding Facility.

April 25, 2007 — The County Should Douse Firefighter Overtime Pay

7 páginas 20 hallazgos 7 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 20 hallazgos

F1: A crew of three – a captain, an engineer, and a firefighter – staff each of the District’s fire engines. Twenty-eight of the 30 crews for the District have at least one member who is a trained paramedic. There are three shifts, each made up of a complement of 93 fire fighting personnel (90 firefighters and 3 battalion chiefs) and five dispatchers. This staffing level is defined in the Memorandum of Understanding between the County and United Professional Firefighters of Contra Costa County, Local 1230.

F2: A firefighter’s regular workweek averages 56 hours. The work schedule is made up of approximately ten 24-hour work shifts per month. Compensation includes base pay, overtime pay, vacation and holiday pay, uniform allowances, fire recall/standby incentives, and educational/training/ longevity incentives. 2

F3: The District pays three of the 56 work hours as “scheduled” overtime at the rate of time- and-a-half, citing the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act as its authority for this practice. All non-management shift workers are also paid 12 hours of overtime for each of 13 holidays, whether they are working or not. All other overtime is classified as "unscheduled" overtime.

F4: An average of 15% of each shift’s personnel are routinely absent due to vacations, sick leave, personal leave, training, or work-related injuries.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R4: Whenever possible, require that training for current firefighters be conducted without incurring overtime.

F5: Relief staff (when available), or recalled staff, cover vacant positions and absences on an unscheduled overtime basis, at time-and-a-half. Relief staff members are permanent employees who are not assigned to a fire station. The Board of Supervisors, in negotiating with the union, has agreed to limit the number of relief staff members to 12 per shift, or a total of 36 firefighter positions. Currently, there are no relief staff members. As a result, overtime is used to cover both vacant positions and daily absences.

F6: Approximately eighty-five percent of the District’s General Fund Budget is dedicated to salaries and benefits. In 2006, unscheduled overtime pay totaled approximately $9 million, which represented 34% of total regular base pay.

F7: Unscheduled overtime costs of $9 million in 2006 have increased by more than 70% since

F8: Improvements to retirement benefits negotiated in 2002 led to a spike in the number of retirements in 2005 and 2006. The change in service credits from 2% to 3% per year at age 50 has increased the need for overtime because of the high number of vacancies created by retirements. This problem is made worse by the lack of adequate notice of impending retirements, typically less than 30 days. The District has no policy to encourage early notification of firefighters’ intended retirements. As of February 2007, the District had 50 unfilled firefighter positions, of which 49 were attributed to retirements. 3

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: Propose that personnel give 90 days notice prior to retirement. Develop a monetary incentive program to encourage early retirement notification.

F9: The District’s policy is to manage overtime costs through the effective use of relief staff rather than overtime personnel. The cost savings resulting from this practice vary, depending on the positions to be filled, the number of vacancies, and the number of relief staff members. Annual savings range from $13,000 to $40,000 per year per position, depending upon the job classification (e.g., captain, engineer, and firefighter).

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: Continue to use relief crews in covering for absent firefighters. Negotiate the removal of the 12 per shift limitation that applies to firefighter relief staffing, and leave the relief staffing level to the discretion of the District.

F10: Unlike some other safety agencies, for example, the Los Angeles County Fire District and the California Highway Patrol, the District currently has no limit on the number of continuous hours a firefighter may work.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: Negotiate a change to the Memorandum of Understanding that would limit continuous work to 72 hours and require that an employee must have at least 24 hours off after a 72- hour continuous segment. Exceptions may be made if emergency activities require extended duty.

F11: Section 23 of the labor contract between the District and the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1230 reads, "The District shall expend every effort to see to it that the work performed under the terms and conditions of this Memorandum of Understanding is performed with maximum degree of safety consistent with the requirement to conduct efficient operations."

F12: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have identified problems with shift work and excessive hours. Their studies have shown that fatigue is associated with decreased alertness, lowered cognitive functions, declining vigilance in physical task performance and increased injuries, and illness. Sleep loss can affect job performance. It can also make it easier to fall asleep at inappropriate times, endangering safety workers and those they serve.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F13: A District firefighter's normal shift is 24 continuous hours (8am to 8am). They work three 24-hour shifts within a nine-day work cycle. Many firefighters routinely work for 72 consecutive hours or more. In the past, the District has proposed a limit on continuous work hours but failed to successfully negotiate this with the union.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F14: A key element in the need for overtime is the large number of vacant firefighter positions. The latest hiring list of firefighter candidates was exhausted in 2005. Inadequate planning for staffing needs by the District, coupled with the requirements administered by the County’s Human Resources department (e.g., a consent decree resulting from a past lawsuit against the County), have created long delays in establishing a new list of qualified candidates.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R5: Institute a structured, periodic staffing plan to better anticipate the on-going staffing needs of the District.

R6: Develop and maintain an active candidates list based on a plan which can be accomplished by one or more of the following options: (cid:131) The District, in conjunction with Human Resources, streamlines the hiring cycle to reduce its length. (cid:131) The District investigates alternatives, such as the District assuming responsibility for the entire hiring process. (cid:131) The District researches the possibility of outsourcing all or part of the hiring process to a private company. 6

F15: Hiring procedures have added to the vacancy crisis that results in the increased use of overtime. Past hiring cycles have taken up to a year-and-a-half before a single firefighter was hired. In the most recent cycle, the District did not ask the Human Resources department to begin the hiring process for new candidates until the current list no longer included any acceptable candidates. The District delayed its request despite the knowledge that the previous list had taken over a year to develop. The current cycle began November 1, 2005, and proceeded as follows: 11/05/05 District asks Human Resources to begin process 3/20/06 Human Resources announces exam 4 4/3/06 - 4/7/06 Applications accepted by Human Resources 5/6/06 Written test administered 7/06 List of eligible candidates published 7/9/06 District requests certification of eligible candidates 7/17/06 District receives a list of 395 candidates from Human Resources 8/11/06 District mails candidate interview notices (Round 1) 8/15/06 Human Resources provides applications to the District 8/28/06-9/12/06 District conducts Round 1 interviews From September to November, an internal Merit Board complaint investigation concerning alleged bias in candidate screening filed by two candidates resulted in an additional delay. The allegations were later determined to have been unfounded. 11/13/06 District mails candidates interview notices (Round 2) 11/13/06 District mails regret notices to unsuccessful candidates 12/4/06-12/8/06 District conducts Round 2 interviews with 78 candidates Jan / Feb 2007 Background investigations conducted

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F16: As of March 2007, 16 months following the November 2005 request to begin the hiring process, no new firefighters had been hired. Because of the length of the current hiring cycle, the District is incurring over $60,000 per month in additional overtime costs, based on the number and mix of vacant openings.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F17: After completing the hiring process, candidates must pass psychological evaluations and physical examinations. Recruits must complete a 16-week District training program prior to assignment. Therefore, the current hiring cycle results in a minimum of 20 months before the first new firefighter reports to work.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R7: Pursue the possibility of establishing an on-going, regional fire academy to accelerate basic training of candidates.

F18: The District trains all new hires at its academy. Classes do not begin until there is a minimum of 10 recruits with a maximum of 25. These limitations have caused training delays. Generally, the academy is limited to the District’s recruits.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R7: Pursue the possibility of establishing an on-going, regional fire academy to accelerate basic training of candidates.

F19: There are private companies with extensive experience in screening fire service candidates. Use of such a service could reduce staff time required by the in-house hiring process and provide the District with a list of qualified candidates. The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District makes use of one such private company to pre-screen its firefighter candidates.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F20: Of the more than 2000 firefighter applicants, over 1,400 candidates took the District’s examination given on May 6, 2006. CONCLUSIONS

March 15, 2007 — County Crime Lab: High Quality Test Results, Chronically Delayed Severe Understaffing Compromises County Lab’s

8 páginas 23 hallazgos 7 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 23 hallazgos

F1: The Contra Costa County Forensics and Crime Laboratory is a division of the Office of the Sheriff.

F2: The Lab has a total staff of 72, a combination of scientific, technical, support, and administrative personnel. The Lab staff is assigned to four functional areas: Drug, Alcohol & Toxicology Section, Criminalistics Section, Central Identification Services (fingerprinting), and Property & Evidence Services.

F3: The Lab maintains accreditation from the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD-LAB). The Lab is one of several county crime laboratories in the nation that has earned such recognition. ASCLD-LAB standards do not include a criterion for test turnaround timeliness.

F4: The Lab provides forensic testing and consultation services (scientific analysis of crime scene physical evidence) to the Sheriff’s Office, as well as to local police agencies, the Solano County District Attorney, Vallejo, and recently Oakland, on a contracted, fee-for-service basis. Oakland’s services are limited to selected fingerprint testing.

F5: The Lab is one of only four county crime labs in the state of California that charge contracting agencies fees for their services; Alameda, Santa Clara, and Sacramento are the other three.

F6: Based on fiscal year 2005-2006 data, forensic testing and consultation fees charged by the Lab to contracting police agencies generated $1.8 million. That represented approximately 25% of the Lab’s $7.2 million total cost of providing the services. The percentage of the service cost covered by fees charged to police agencies ranges from a low of 19% for selected Criminalistic Section tests to a 3 high of 76% for selected tests completed by the Drug, Alcohol & Toxicology Section. Following are program cost and client fee recovery percentage details: Program Cost and Percent of Cost Recovery From Client Fees Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Program Total Cost Percent of Cost Recovery Criminalistics $2.79 million 19% Latents $320,000* 37% Livescan $120,000* 47%** Identification $533,000* 15%*** CAL-ID $1.45 million 47% Alcohol $607,000 76% Drugs $900,000 67% Toxicology $523,000 54% *Lab estimates **Non-police clients; e.g., job applicants ***Custody Alternative Program “client” and Martinez Detention Center detainee fingerprint screening Program Descriptions Criminalistics--Firearms, DNA, Trace Evidence, Crime Scene Investigation Latents—Fingerprint evidence from crime scenes Livescan—Electronic fingerprinting of job, license, and permit applications Identification—Identification of subjects booked at the Martinez Detention Center by the Office of the Sheriff CAL-ID—Identification of subjects booked at the Martinez Detention Center by local police departments; Crime scene fingerprint evidence from local police departments Alcohol—Blood and breath alcohol analysis Drugs—Solid dosage (sample) drug analysis Toxicology—Ante mortem (before death) and postmortem (after death) drug and body fluid analysis NOTE: The Lab generated additional revenue from other sources, such as fines, asset seizures and state-mandated fees. Together, revenues from other sources ($2.3 million), and fees charged to local police agencies ($1.8 million), offset approximately 57% ($4.1 million) of the Lab’s $7.2 million cost of providing forensic services.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R7: Once the Lab improves its overall test turnaround time performance levels, it should take the opportunity to increase its fees so that local police agency contract income, when combined with other sources of revenue, more closely approximates the cost of providing all forensic services.

F7: The Lab’s published mission statement reads: “Provide a high level of timely (emphasis added), thorough, accurate, and objective evidence analysis, consultation, and crime scene processing services.” 4

F8: The Lab’s Drug, Alcohol & Toxicology Section, located at Muir Road in Martinez, regularly reports testing turnaround times that do not vary widely from those of other crime labs around the state and across the country. This section’s reported turnaround times are accurate because they do not carry a significant backlog of test requests.

F9: The Lab’s Criminalistics Section, located at Escobar Road in Martinez, also reports turnaround times that do not vary widely from those reported by other labs. However, in this case the information is inaccurate and misleading because this section consistently carries a significant backlog of test requests.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: The Lab should expand its turnaround time reports to include all backlog data to more accurately and completely report “aging” test requests.

F10: The Criminalistics Section reports the average length of time between receiving test requests and completion. The turnaround time calculations do not include any “backlogged” or “aging” test requests; i.e., cases where testing is either incomplete or has not yet begun.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: The Lab should expand its turnaround time reports to include all backlog data to more accurately and completely report “aging” test requests.

F11: Contracting police agencies routinely follow a procedure encouraged by the Criminalistics Section management to expedite cases of special interest. They call management directly to request special consideration of selected cases. Management responds as often as it can by directing criminalists to set aside other test requests in the work queue to complete the special requests.

F12: Local police agencies report a consistently high level of confidence in the quality of Lab test results. However, they also report long-standing dissatisfaction and frustration with testing turnaround times, especially those involving the Criminalistics Section. Local police agencies report they are using, or are considering using, alternative testing facilities such as the FBI or private labs on a selective basis.

F13: The Criminalistic Section’s Biology, Firearms and Trace backlog data reflects test requests dating back more than three years. Further, the Criminalistics Section reports an estimated 2500-3000 firearms that have not even been catalogued, and are yet to be added to the formal backlog count.

F14: The Lab’s Criminalistics Section is organized into four functional sub-units based on the types of services each provides; i.e., Biology (DNA, liquid blood, sexual assault, and miscellaneous biology screening), Firearms (identification and testing), Trace & Impressions (fabrics, paint, hair, and arson), and Crime Scene Investigation.

F15: The Criminalistics Section staff includes 11 approved criminalist positions for all three sub-units, as well as two crime scene investigators. However, one of the approved criminalist positions currently is unfunded due to budgetary constraints. In 1980, the Lab had the same number of approved criminalists as it does today. At that time, criminalists had a broader range of testing responsibilities, including 5 drug, alcohol and toxicology. In 1980, DNA testing procedures did not exist. Today, four of the 10 budgeted criminalists are assigned to DNA testing.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: The Sheriff should seek approval to increase the number of authorized and budgeted criminalists in the Lab from the current 1980 level of 11, to between 20 and 24, to be assigned as required in the Criminalistic Section’s Biology, Firearms, and Trace & Impression sub-units.

F16: By comparison the city of San Diego police department’s crime lab has a complement of 26 criminalists, 13 of which are assigned to DNA testing. The city of San Diego’s population is similar in size to Contra Costa County.

F17: Since 1980, Contra Costa County’s population has increased from approximately 656,000 to more than 1.1 million.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F18: The Lab makes use of a 40-year old functional model that requires criminalists to divide their time between performing laboratory-based scientific tests and conducting crime scene investigations. Statistics for 2005 show that 36% of total criminalists’ work hours were devoted to crime scene investigations.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: The Sheriff should eliminate the requirement that staff criminalists divide their time between scientific, laboratory-based testing and crime scene investigation.

F19: The County requires scientifically trained criminalists to be sworn peace officers; i.e., County Deputy Sheriffs. Contra Costa is the last county in the state with the sworn officer requirement. The next to last, San Bernardino County, eliminated the requirement 20 years ago.

F20: The County received applications from only two qualified, experienced candidates for the vacant Deputy Sheriff-Criminalists positions during the 2005 recruitment effort, due in part to the sworn officer requirement.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: The Sheriff should expedite the anticipated elimination of the requirement that new criminalists must also be sworn peace officers. 7

F21: Few of the local police agencies the Lab’s Criminalistics Section serves have their own dedicated Crime Scene Investigation (“CSI”) units. Instead, they rely on the Criminalistics Section to provide such support, reportedly in some cases, coverage for simply unavailable, ill or vacationing investigators in some local police departments.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R4: The Sheriff should work with those contracting police agencies without their own CSI units to help them transition to their own units to support local investigators.

F22: By comparison to the Lab’s newer and larger Muir Road facility, the available space for the Criminalistics Section’s staff at the Escobar Road location is outdated and inadequate from a square footage standpoint to meet current staff, testing, and storage requirements, let alone future, needs if it were appropriately staffed.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: The Sheriff should secure adequate and up-to-date workspace to accommodate not only the Lab’s existing Criminalistics Section staff but also the recommended increase in staff members.

F23: The County’s Office of the District Attorney (“DA”) points to a consistently high level of test quality and Lab staff professionalism. The DA is unaware of any instances when his office was not able to expedite Lab testing if necessary for a felony case that finally went to trial. CONCLUSIONS

March 01, 2007 — County Healthcare Plan Eligibility Loopholes Are All Reported Dependents Eligible for County Healthcare Plans?

7 páginas 16 hallazgos 8 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 16 hallazgos

F1: The County contracts with, and is billed monthly by, healthcare plan administrators and insurance carriers on either an “individual” (employee or retiree only) or “family” (employee or retiree plus dependents) basis. The County pays one monthly insurance premium amount per plan for employees and retirees with no dependents (“individual”) and another negotiated monthly rate for employees and retirees with dependents (“family”), regardless of the number of dependents reported per family.

F2: Based on representative monthly data (September 2006), the County pays healthcare insurance premiums averaging $8.8 million per month--over $105 million annually. Employee and retiree premiums average $1.37 million monthly—over $16.4 million annually.

F3: Based on representative data (September 2006), the County maintains combined medical and/or dental plan eligibility records for approximately 7,800 employees, 4,200 retirees, 330 surviving spouses, and 16,000 reported dependent spouses, children, and domestic partners.

F4: The County contracts with its healthcare plan administrators and insurance carriers on a “fully-insured” basis. Under this financial arrangement, healthcare administrators and carriers are responsible for all costs in excess of the premiums collected from the County during a specified contract period. The negotiated premiums include anticipated costs for the benefits, administrative costs, and a profit for the administrators and carriers.

F5: Each year, healthcare plan administrators and insurance carriers audit premiums and benefits paid, and increase premiums for subsequent years if benefits paid in the prior year exceeded premiums received.

F6: County healthcare plan participation is available to “eligible dependents.” Eligible dependents are defined as legal spouses, qualified domestic partners, unmarried children under the age of 19 for whom the employee or retiree has legal responsibility, and children under the age of 25 that, according to IRS regulations, are more than 50% dependent on the employee or retiree, and who are anticipated to be claimed as dependent children on the employee’s or retiree’s income tax return. Eligible dependents between the ages of 19-25 need not be full-time students to be eligible to participate in the healthcare plans. Disabled children over the age of 19 are also eligible to participate provided their disability occurred 3 prior to their reaching the age of 19, and that they also are dependents as defined by IRS regulations.

F7: The HR department is responsible for the administration of healthcare plan eligibility polices, the maintenance of eligibility records, and the monthly reporting of eligibility information to healthcare plan administrators and insurance carriers.

F8: The HR department relies on employees and retirees to enroll dependents. This is accomplished through the use of either an “Open Enrollment Change Form” or “Health And Dental Plan Enrollment Form.” The latter specifies that, outside of annual open enrollment periods, employees and retirees are responsible for timely notification regarding the addition of eligible dependents; i.e., within 60 days of a qualifying event such as marriage or childbirth.

F9: The “Open Enrollment Change Form” and “Health And Dental Plan Enrollment Form” also serve as the method by which employees and retirees are expected to report that dependents are no longer eligible. However, neither form obligates employees and retirees to report dependent deletions within any specified period.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: Require that employees and retirees report dependent deletions in a timely manner, but in no case later than 60 days following a change in their IRS dependent status; i.e., the employee or retiree is no longer responsible for more than 50% of the enrolled dependent’s support.

F10: Neither the “Open Enrollment Change Form” or the “Health And Dental Plan Enrollment Form” require employees or retirees to attest, by means of a signature, and under penalty of perjury, to the accuracy of the enrollment or deletion information they provide to the HR department.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: At the time of enrollment, require employees and retirees in any of the County’s healthcare benefit plans to attest to the accuracy of the information they are providing by means of a signature, under penalty of perjury, on the enrollment form.

F11: The HR department does not verify that dependents reported during the enrollment process meet eligibility requirements for participation in the County’s healthcare plans or that they remain eligible.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)

R1: To verify the legal status of all reported dependents at the time of enrollment, require that employees and retirees provide appropriate documentation in the form of original or certified copies of marriage licenses, domestic partner certification, birth certificates, adoption court orders, and court custody orders.

R4: Within one year of this report, the HR department should verify the eligibility of all dependents currently enrolled in the County’s healthcare plans requiring the same documentation as detailed in recommendations 1 through 3, above.

R5: Thereafter, the HR department should verify the status of dependents already enrolled, annually, requiring the same documentation as detailed in recommendations 1 through 3, above for whom appropriate documentation was not previously secured and/or copies of which are not on file.

F12: The County’s “2007 Employee Benefits Information and Open Enrollment Guide” includes the following policy statement: “It is against County Policy for an employee to enroll ineligible persons as dependents; to do so may subject the employee to disciplinary action as well as the obligation to reimburse the plan for all costs associated with the delivery of medical or dental services to an ineligible person.”

F13: The HR department does not have a procedure to secure reimbursement from employees or retirees of all costs associated with the delivery of medical or dental services to an ineligible healthcare plan enrollee.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: Consistent with the County’s policy, establish and implement a procedure for securing reimbursement from employees and retirees for all costs associated with the delivery of medical or dental services provided to an ineligible enrollee in the County’s healthcare plans.

F14: The HR department does not require all of its healthcare plan administrators and insurance carriers to verify by means of quality assurance “self-audits” or external audits that all the County’s healthcare plan contract provisions are being met; i.e., eligibility determination, plan coverage limits, customer service expectations, etc. 4

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R8: Require all health plan administrators and insurance carriers to complete annual administration quality assurance self-audits and/or external audits, at their own expense, with reports to the Human Resources department to ensure that all the County’s contractual obligations are being met; e.g., eligibility verification, plan coverage limits, customer service, and performance levels. 6

F15: The healthcare eligibility benefits administration computer system, installed in 1989, does not allow for automated, self-service inquires and information updates by eligible employees, retirees, and dependents. The system’s limited flexibility also does not allow the HR department to easily generate the ad hoc reports necessary to help analyze eligibility data.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R7: Within one year of this report, complete the data processing system vendor screening process in preparation for the purchase and installation of a healthcare eligibility administration system to replace the County’s aging, inflexible system.

F16: The HR department hopes to replace its aging healthcare benefits administration system. Qualified data processing system vendors will be given the opportunity to submit proposals for a new system to meet the County’s requirements. CONCLUSIONS

February 21, 2007 — Board of Supervisors’ Budgets, Compensation and Staffing Report

6 páginas 14 hallazgos 4 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 14 hallazgos

F1: The five-member elected Board of Supervisors is the governing body of Contra Costa County, responsible for the County budget and the operations of the County government.

F2: The California Constitution provides that the Board of Supervisors shall prescribe by ordinance the compensation of its members: Article XI, Section I, Subsection (b).

F3: The California Penal Code, section 927, reads as follows: “A grand jury may, and when requested by the board of supervisors shall, investigate and report upon the needs for increase or decrease in salaries of the county-elected officials. A copy of such a report shall be transmitted to the board of supervisors.”

F4: As elected County officials, Supervisors receive a salary that is paid without regard to hours worked. Given the commitments of the many boards, committees, and authorities, most Supervisors work 50-70 hours per week. 2

F5: As of December 2006, Contra Costa County Supervisors received a monthly salary of $4,993 ($59,916 annually) and an auto allowance of $550 per month, plus a mileage reimbursement. The County contributed $60 per month plus $6,000 annually, to their deferred compensation account. Supervisors are entitled to the same benefits as all other County employees.

F6: Typically, each supervisor serves on more than 25 County and regional boards, commissions and authorities, most of which do not pay stipends (fixed sum of money paid periodically for services). Estimated total stipends range from approximately $300 to $600 monthly per Supervisor. Paying stipends to supervisors is a common practice in California.

F7: The six other elected County officials’ annual current salaries range from $120,519 to $183,393. The twenty-one County executives’ and department heads’ salaries range from $86,841 to $271,000.

F8: Twenty-four percent (24%) of all County employees (union and non-union) have higher salaries than Supervisors.

F9: The County has a history of maintaining competitive compensation for the workforce. This has been demonstrated in past years by salary increases and cost-of-living adjustments (“COLA”) for union and non-union employees. The Supervisors have not followed this practice for their own positions. The Supervisors' last salary adjustments of 2.02 % ($85 per month) and 3.55% ($152 per month) occurred in June and October 1998, respectively. Their last COLA adjustment of 4.1% ($198 per month) occurred in October 2001.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R1: Supervisors’ compensation (salary, auto allowance and deferred compensation) as of December 2006 should be increased by 51%, to take effect following the next Supervisorial election in November 2008.

R2: Supervisors’ salaries should be adjusted consistent with countywide COLA adjustments, effective January 2007. .

F10: To evaluate the relative compensation of the BOS, the Grand Jury selected six counties of comparable population and budget sizes as follows: California County Comparison (based on population and budget sizes)(October 2006) County Monthly Monthly Auto Deferred County Budget Population Salary* Allowance Compensation (Billions) Alameda $10,046 $310.56 biwkly $8,000/yr $2.19 1,500,000 Ventura $8,790 $375 Up to $263/mo $1.47 742,000 Fresno $7,534 $250 $0 $1.28 824,000 San Mateo $6,981 $385 biwkly $0 $1.48 707,000 Kern $6,854 $584 $0 $1.30 703,000 Sacramento $6,593 $500 $0 $2.35 1,219,000 Contra Costa $4,993 $550+mileage $60/mo + $6,000/yr $1.45 1,000,000 Notes: *Salary formula (10/2006): Alameda sets their BOS salaries at 80% of Superior Court Judges. **County / regional committee stipends and county benefit payments were also considered but excluded because it was difficult to obtain accurate and comparable data. The fees and benefit practices were consistent among the counties studied. 3

F11: The County salary comparison used all income items paid to the Supervisors for which comparable and consistent data were available, including salary, auto allowance (excluding mileage) and deferred compensation. The total supervisor compensation for counties included in the survey was then adjusted for cost of living differences, compared to the Contra Costa County base of 100.0%. Following is the summary with the compensation dollars adjusted for cost-of-living differences: County Base Salary Cost-of-Living Adjusted Defer Comp, & Car Index by County* Compensation Alameda $11,386 104.0% $10,948 Ventura $9,428 93.0 $10,138 Fresno $7,784 83.0 $9,378 San Mateo $7,815 114.0 $6,855 Kern $7,438 77.0 $9,660 Sacramento $7,093 84.0 $8,440 Contra Costa $6,103 100.0% $6,103 Six counties: Average = $9,237, or 51.4% above Contra Costa County’s total compensation (salary, auto allowance and deferred compensation) for Supervisors. Note: *Cost-of-living differences in the six counties selected for comparisons incorporates consumer purchasing, housing, transportation, taxes, health care, and miscellaneous items (i.e., private schools and recreation). The source of data is from the Economic Research Institute (ERI).

F12: Based primarily on the geographic size of the districts, Supervisors for Districts I, II and IV are entitled to four and one-half (4 1/2) Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff members. The Supervisor for District III is entitled to six (6) FTE staff members. The Supervisor for District V is entitled to five (5) FTE staff members. Supervisors may split FTE positions into several part-time positions in order to extend office coverage. Following is a list of positions and monthly salaries for the Supervisors’ FTE staff members: BOS Chief of Staff $5,329.30 BOS Specialist $4,602.87-4,833.02 BOS General Secretarial $3,507.83-4,385.34 BOS General Office $2,440.01-3,433.35 Staff members are hired by the elected Supervisors and are employed as “at will” employees as a condition of their employment. These four positions are in unique County classifications not used by other County departments.. As such, they are not regularly market-surveyed in regard to compensation. The last salary adjustment, 4 (other than COLA), was given in 1998 when the positions were re-titled and the salaries were increased by 5.02%. All positions are eligible for COLA increases approved by the County for non-union employees. In 2004, all non-union County employees were granted an increase of 3.0%.

F13: The Supervisors’ staff positions are not comparable to other County job classifications. The salary ranges for the Supervisors’ staff are established relative to the Chief of Staff position. Using the same methodology as for Supervisors, following is a summary of the survey information and adjusted compensation based on the cost- of-living index. County BOS Chief of Staff Cost-of-Living Adjusted Monthly Salary Index by County Compensation Alameda $8,411 104.0% $8,088 Ventura $6,257 93.0 $6,728 Fresno $4,563 83.0 $5,498 San Mateo $5,751 114.0 $5,045 Kern $4,334 77.0 $5,629 Sacramento $4,892 84.0 $5,824 Contra Costa $5,329 100.0% $5,329 Six counties: Average = $6,135, or 15.1% above Contra Costa County’s salary for BOS Chief of Staff

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R3: Supervisors’ staff salary ranges should be increased by 15%, effective January 2007. Supervisors’ staff salary ranges should be adjusted consistent with countywide COLA adjustments for non-union staff.

R5: Supervisors should establish a practice of annually reviewing their staff salaries to ensure they are equitable and commensurate with their responsibilities.

F14: Each County Supervisor’s budget is prepared in cooperation with the County Administrator and subsequently adopted by the BOS. While Supervisors may request special consideration for budget adjustments, including staff salary increases, they have not done so. CONCLUSIONS

July 11, 2006 — Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 0701 Compliance and Review Committee Report The Contra Costa County Civil Grand

46 páginas 18 hallazgos

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 18 hallazgos

F1: In each of the last three fiscal years, the County’s expenditures have exceeded revenue by amounts ranging from $17 million to $22 million. The County drew down reserve funds to cover the shortage. Response: Agree.

Página 2

F2: On June 28, 2005, the BOS approved the 2005/2006 budget with a projected $20 million deficit. At this rate of deficit spending, the June 30, 2006 unreserved fund balance will be approximately 3.5% of revenue -- below the 5% minimum level recently established by the BOS -- and will be exhausted before June 30, 2008. Response: Partially disagree. This statement was true as of June 28, 2005; however, the County did not continue the budgeted rate of deficit spending and, how, at year- end the unreserved fund balance is expected to be above the June 28, 2005 estimate.

Página 2

F3: On May 2, 2006, the BOS approved a balanced budget for fiscal year 2006-2007 that includes a reduction of 200 staff positions and reductions in services provided by the County. Response: Agree. Capital Projects 4. The Capital Facilities Committee, a two-person committee of the BOS, oversees most major capital projects. Response: Partially disagree. The County Administrator’s Office oversees the management of capital projects. The Board’s Capital Facilities Committee recommends priorities for capital facilities funds to the Board of Supervisors and monitors the progress of major capital projects.

Página 2

F4: Before proceeding with the District Attorney Building, re-evaluate the project justification using the recommended justification standards especially with respect to the financial projections (Recommendation #2c). Response: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The District Attorney project has already undergone a rigorous justification process that has included multiple staff reports and approvals by the Capital Facilities Committee and the Board of Supervisors. APPENDIX A District Attorney Building On April 29, 2003, the BOS authorized a feasibility study of a new District Attorney building. The building consolidates four separate offices into one building adjacent to the courts in downtown Martinez. In 2005, construction documents for the new building were completed. On May 2, 2006, the BOS authorized issuance of a request for competitive bids for construction. Total project cost was estimated as follows: Design phase $2,800,000 Construction 18,500,000 Furniture 1,200,000 Total $22,500,000 The projected funding sources were as follows: Plant Acquisition Account $3,800,000 Criminal Justice Facility Construction Fund 4,000,000 Lease Revenue Bonds 14,700,000 Total $22,500,000 The Plant Acquisition Account figure represents accumulations from the District Attorney’s annual operating budget over the past few years. The Criminal Justice Facility Construction Fund (“Criminal Justice Fund”) is derived from court fines and fees. It may be used for “construction, reconstruction, expansion, improvement, operation, or maintenance of county criminal justice and court facilities and for improvement of criminal justice automated information systems.” The project justification (dated December 1, 2005) assumes that 25-year lease revenue bonds would be sold in mid-2006, at a rate of 6 percent interest, to partially finance the project. Three revenue streams are identified for this new debt service: 1. $500,000 annually from the Criminal Justice Fund. 2. $213,340 annually from personnel reductions of two clerks and one office manager, due to consolidation of offices. 3. $366,608 to $377,380 annually from occupancy cost savings, due to vacating the current offices at four different locations. This savings assumes that replacement tenants can be found. Projection of Annual Costs and Savings (in thousands) 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 & beyond Net Debt Service $847 $1,049 $1,082 $1,117 $1,156 Savings: Criminal Justice Fund (500) (500) (500) (500) (500) Personnel Savings (213) (213) (213) (213) (213) Occupancy Savings (366) (370) (373) (377) (377) BEST CASE (sublease of existing facilities): Net cost or (savings) $(232) $(34) $(4) $27 $66 POSSIBLE CASE (without subleasing): Net cost or (savings) $(91) $111 $143 $179 $107 Comments: Without the $3.8 million from the plant acquisition account and the $4.0 million from the Criminal Justice Fund (both of which are used to lower the amount of lease revenue bonds required to finance the project from $22.5 million to $14.7 million), the annual debt service cost would increase by slightly over 50%, or more than $500,000 per year. In addition to $4.0 million in up-front money from the Criminal Justice Fund, the project proposal contemplates using $500,000 per year for 25 years from the Criminal Justice Fund to offset part of the lease revenue bond debt service. The source of the Plant Acquisition Account is the General Fund. If this project were not undertaken, the funds would be available for any General Fund expenditure, which covers most County expenditures. Using Criminal Justice Funds (which, as previously indicated may be used for a wide variety of expenditures related to criminal justice) for this project makes them unavailable for other expenditures. Such projects will then have to be funded by the General Fund, thus increasing net County cost at that time. The proposal understates the net County cost by more than $1 million annually -- $500,000 from understated debt service cost and the $500,000 of “free” funds from the Criminal Justice Fund. Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building On September 23, 2003, the BOS approved a project to replace and consolidate the County Clerk-Recorder and Elections facilities. At present, the functions of this department are located in six different buildings in downtown Martinez. This project involves a newly constructed office on Escobar Street in Martinez. On April 26, 2005, the BOS approved a specific lease agreement 9 with a purchase option, which, consistent with BOS policy that the County has an equity interest in facilities in which the County has long-term occupancy, the County is expected to exercise. Total purchase cost was estimated as follows: Sept 23, 2003 April 26, 2005 Projection Projection Building Purchase $8,900,000 $10,994,000 Other Costs 700,000 769,000 Total $9,600,000 $11,763,000 The projected funding sources were as follows: General Fund Contributions $1,950,000 $1,950,000 Micrographic Modernization Fund 2,000,000 2,000,000 Lease Revenue Bonds 5,650,000 7,813,000 Total $9,600,000 $11,763,000 The General Fund Contributions figure represents accumulations from the County Clerk’s annual operating budget over the past few years. The Micrographic Modernization Fund receives revenue from filing and recording fees. The funds are to be used for micrographics and modernization of the Recorder’s Office. The project justification assumes that 25-year lease revenue bonds would be sold in mid-2006, at a rate of 6 percent interest, to partially finance the project. Projection of Annual Costs and Savings Sept 23, 2003 April 26, 2005 Projection Projection Current Facilities Lease Cost: Fiscal Year 2005-2006 $(612,019) Fiscal Year 2006-2007 $(765,085) New Building: Debt Service 386,500 604,071 Maintenance/Utilities 220,000 225,000 New Building Subtotal $606,500 $829,071 Increase (Decrease) in net County cost $(5,519) $63,986 10 Comments: This project justification indicates that it meets the “improves productivity or reduces net County cost” prioritization criterion. However, there are no projected staff reductions and the final justification shows an increase in annual net County cost of $64,000. The approach to financing the building purchase is similar to that used for the District Attorney Building. As such, it has a similar conceptual flaw. In this case, it assumes the use of $1,950,000 of funds that originated in the General Fund to reduce the amount of lease revenue bonds required. Without these “free” funds the County would have to issue $1,950,000 more lease revenue bonds and the annual net Count cost would increase by more than $150,000 due to higher debt service costs. There is a similar question with respect to the $2,000,000 to be obtained from the Micrographic Modernization Fund. There are some differences in that the Fund comes from revenue from County Clerk functions, the permissible uses are restricted much more than for the Criminal Justice Fund, and the $2,000,000 is based on the square footage to be occupied by micrographic functions. There is only a very limited explanation for the changes in project financial projections from September 2003 (for the B0S’s conditional approval) to April 2005 (for final approval). With respect to the $2.2 million (23%) increase in cost, the April, 2005 presentation states that “project costs have been refined to incorporate all fixed tenant improvements, state-of-the-art climate control, mechanical, electrical, fire alarm and security systems.” No further details are provided. This does not explain why the costs increased. There are no comments on the $117,000 (19%) increase in occupancy cost in 2005/2006 or on net County cost, which increased by $69,500 and changed from a savings to a cost. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 0603 Antioch School District’s Caregiver Program Do these Students belong Here? Response from Antioch Unified School District, Board of Education FINDINGS 1. Approximately 21,200 students are currently enrolled within the District. Response: None.

Página 7

F5: All major capital projects require the approval of the BOS for each major phase, i.e., feasibility, design, and construction. Response: Agree. 2 6. The BOS has not adopted a written policy regarding the justification and approval of capital facilities projects which addresses such basic questions as: a. How large does a project have to be before it is subject to review and approval outside a department? b. What specific information is required for the justification for each phase of a project? c. What is the approval process for each phase of a project? Response: Partially disagree. The Capital Facilities Committee of the Board of Supervisors reviews capital projects and makes recommendations to the Board. The Committee reviews all capital projects with an estimated project cost of $1 million or more. The Committee has established criteria that it uses to evaluate and prioritize capital projects. The Committee has directed staff to develop a standardized format for presenting proposed projects, which will allow the Committee to receive information to evaluate projects in a consistent format. This reporting format will include information concerning the facilities need to be addressed by a proposed project, details of the proposed solution, and the proposed financing plan for the project. Capital projects are evaluated on the basis of the project as a whole, rather than in individual phases. However, the Board or the Capital Facilities Committee may direct staff to provide status reports at the completion of various phases of a project to ensure that assumptions made at the outset of a project remain valid. For example, cost estimates made at the outset of capital projects are usually based on preliminary information concerning project design. These estimates may change once the design of the project is completed. Capital projects typically involve multiple actions that must be reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors during the course of project completion, including the following: • Execution of contracts with architects and other project consultants • Approval of findings required for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • Authorization to seek construction bids • Award of construction contracts • Approval of financing These approvals occur at different stages of project development, allowing for Board review throughout the course of a project. For example, architects are usually hired during the early planning stages, CEQA findings are approved during the design phase, and construction contracts are approved at the completion of design. In addition, for larger projects staff typically provides 3 progress reports to the Capital Facilities Committee at the completion of each major project phase. Moreover, budgetary controls exist that prevent funds from being allocated or transferred to capital accounts without the approval of the County Administrator’s Office and Board of Supervisors.

Página 2

F6: There was no prosecution of caregivers who did not meet the legal requirements of being an eligible caregiver, or who provided false information on an affidavit, or who falsely claimed that a student lived in his or her home. Response: None.

Página 14

F7: The Capital Facilities Committee has no written document, which outlines the scope of its activities. Response: Partially disagree. The Capital Facilities Committee was established during the Board’s reorganization of officers on January 9, 2001. The purpose of he Capital Facilities Committee was defined in a December 20, 2000 memo from incoming Chairwoman Uilkema to the Board members, recommending that the Committee was to work closely with staff in order to develop a workable, long-term financing plan to meet the County’s capital facilities needs. The specific activities of the Committee to accomplish this goal are determined by the Committee members.

Página 4

F8: In capital facilities project justifications, prior year fund balances and other funds, (e.g., the Criminal Justice Construction Fund) which could be used for many other purposes, are treated in financial projections as “free” funds and are used in the projections to reduce the amount of funding and related interest cost of the project. Response: Partially disagree. The County does accumulate funds over multiple years to apply towards large capital projects in the same way a home buyer might save money for a down payment on a house. This is a sound business practice. If by “free” funds, the Grand Jury means funds that are available at no interest charge (as opposed to borrowed funds), then the County agrees with this portion of the finding. Prudent planning for capital needs often involves a multi-year financing plan that may include the accumulation of funds in a capital account prior to construction. This approach reduces the amount of debt required to implement a project, which is [sic] turn reduces the ultimate project cost. However, if “free” funds are meant to imply that the County has complete discretion over the use of the funds, then the County disagrees with that assumption. Some of the funds designated by the County for long-term facility needs are restricted to facility construction and maintenance purposes. For example, the Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund, which is derived from penalty assessments levied on court fines, may be used only for the following limited purposes: assisting any county in the construction, reconstruction, expansion, improvement, operation, or maintenance of county criminal justice and court facilities and for improvement of criminal justice automated information systems.

Página 4

F9: The District Attorney Building is partially justified by “improved productivity or reductions in net County cost”, however even the best case justification shows an increase in net County cost over the life of the project. (The annual increase in net County cost would be another $1 million, if “free” funds, as described in 4 Appendix A, were not utilized in the justification to reduce the amount of lease revenue bonds required to fund the project and the related interest cost.) Response: Agree. The criteria of improved productivity was used as part of the justification for the District Attorney project because the new building will allow the District Attorney staff who work in the downtown Martinez area to consolidate from multiple, crowded office spaces to one space located in close proximity to the Taylor Courthouse. This will improve productivity. The financial projections for the project involve a range of scenarios, some of which include a relatively small increase in net County cost. The District Attorney has indicated a willingness to absorb such a cost in the operating budget of his department, should it occur, so as to maintain cost neutrality to the project budget.

Página 4

F10: The justification for the District Attorney Building does not contain specific information or data that document the life/safety threats or overcrowding that exists or how the issues will be resolved by the new facility. Response: Partially disagree. Recent staff reports have not included detailed descriptions of overcrowding in the District Attorney’s current office spaces because this condition was identified and described in the initial needs assessment and feasibility studies for the new facility performed in 2002/2003. The amount of office space allocated to the District Attorney’s Office has not changed significantly in 10 – 15 years. Overcrowding in the District Attorney’s current facilities is the result of incremental staff growth over this period without a commensurate increase in office space. The new building provides space for current authorized positions, including positions that are being held vacant due to budget cuts.

Página 5

F11: The Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building is partially justified by “improved productivity or reductions in net County cost”, however the justification shows a $64,000 increase in annual net County cost over the life of the project. (The annual increase in net County cost would be another $150,000, if “free” funds, as described in Appendix A, were not utilized in the justification to reduce the amount of lease revenue bonds required to fund the project and the related interest cost.) Response: Agree. The offices of the County Clerk-Recorder and Elections Department are currently spread across six facilities in downtown Martinez. These are all older facilities that the County leases from private property owners. Several of these facilities have chronic maintenance problems that cause interruptions to department operations. The size of the current office spaces is insufficient to meet the needs of the Department. The proposed new facility for the County Clerk-Recorder and Elections offices would improve productivity by providing adequate office space for staff to efficiently conduct department business. The new facility would be built to modern construction 5 standards and would have highly functional building systems, which would greatly reduce operational disruptions caused by maintenance problems. The new facility would also result in the consolidation of staff from multiple sites into one facility, improving coordination among staff and increasing productivity. The project does involve a modest incremental increase in building occupancy costs. The Board determined this incremental cost was justified by the benefits associated with the new facility.

Página 5

F12: The justification for the Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building does not contain specific information or data that document the life/safety threats or overcrowding that exists or how the issues will be resolved by the new facility. Response: Partially disagree. The project will mitigate crowded conditions and improve the productivity of the Clerk-Recorder’s Office, as described in the County’s response to Finding No. 11.

Página 6

F13: The justification for the Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building dated April 26, 2005 provides no explanation why the costs increased from the September 23, 2003 justification. (See Appendix A for more detail.) Response: Agree. The cost increase was due to refined cost estimation and construction cost inflation between the dates of the estimates.

Página 6

F14: In September 2005, County staff received a preliminary estimate of the County’s unfunded liability and annual expense under GASB 45. Response: Agree.

Página 27

F15: At the February 28, 2006 Board of Supervisors’ (“BOS”) meeting, a very brief presentation of the preliminary estimate was made and an independent actuary was retained to perform a full retiree health actuarial valuation for the County, consistent with GASB 45. Response: Agree. The Board discussed this item for approximately 20 minutes on February 28, 2006 and the Finance Committee discussed this item for approximately 90 minutes at a public study session.

Página 27

F16: At the May 2, 2006 BOS meeting, to achieve a balanced budget for fiscal year 2006-2007 (which included retiree health costs on a pay- as-you-go basis) the BOS approved a reduction of 200 staff positions. Response: Agree.

Página 27

F17: At the May 4, 2006 meeting of the BOS Finance Committee, the Committee discussed the valuation authorized on February 28, 2006, and directed County staff and the actuary to: • Analyze alternative changes to healthcare benefits. • Analyze alternative funding approaches. • Investigate unresolved issues including State and Federal cost reimbursements. • Collaborate with the California State Association of Counties to seek information and solutions. No definitive action plan or timeline for these actions was established. Response: Partially disagree. The Finding itself lists the action plan for the next step in the investigation. The required analysis and collaboration must occur before the next logical steps can be developed. An implementation timeline is dependent on the information obtained in the investigative stage. The Finance Committee directed staff to make progress reports to the Committee on a quarterly basis. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2005-2006 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the BOS do the following: 1. By July 31, 2006, establish a plan for addressing retiree health benefits and costs with timelines and responsibilities. Response: Will not be implemented because the recommendation is not reasonable. The Finance Committee and the Board of Supervisors have given direction to staff to develop a plan for addressing retiree health benefits, and this effort is currently underway. It is not reasonable to anticipate that such a plan could be completed by July 31, 2006. As more information is obtained, the general plan will be continually refined to establish a timeline and additional responsibilities.

Página 27

F18: A number of important financial management practices common in the private sector are very limited or absent in the County as follows: a. Multi-year financial projections developed by top management, department heads, and the BOS. b. Rigorous capital project justifications (See Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 0602 issued earlier.) c. Regular management reviews of departmental revenues, costs, and performance by top management, department heads, and the BOS. Response: Partially disagree. While management practices can always be improved or expanded, none of the practices described in the Finding are absent. The County Administrator’s Office performs multi-year financial projections, which are largely dependent on federal and state budget allocations and so are of limited value. Capital projects currently go through a rigorous justification process that includes review and 33 approval by the County Administrator, Capital Facilities Committee, and the Board of Supervisors, and is described in detail in the County’s response to Grand Jury Report No. 0602. In the absence of regular management audits, which have been temporarily suspended due to budget constraints, the County Administrator annually conducts several performance and fiscal audits targeted at specific problems or issues, and has focused limited staff resources on Countywide policies and procedures that affect all County departments and programs. All County department revenues, costs, and fiscal controls are reviewed on a regular basis under the County Administrator’s budget reporting and the Auditor-Controller’s internal audit programs.

Página 33