Contra Costa County 2007-2008 - California Grand Jury Reports

June 30, 2008 — To Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors School Boards City Councils District Boards

8 páginas 16 hallazgos 4 recomendaciones

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 16 hallazgos

F1: Retiree health benefits have traditionally been a form of compensation earned by County and local government employees (e.g., pension income) over their working career, but paid to them over the years they spend in retirement. In prior years the cost of these benefits was usually recognized as an expense only when actual payments began following an employee’s retirement (This method of recognizing an expense is commonly described as “pay-as-you-go” or “paygo”.)

F2: GASB 45 now requires that larger governmental entities commence accounting for (but not necessarily funding) these benefits on an Accrual basis – during the employees’ period of active service when the benefits are actually earned.

F3: GASB 45 requires the following expenses to be recognized: • the current year’s cost to fund that year’s earned benefits, plus • the amount necessary to fund the unfunded OPEB liability for benefits earned but not funded in prior years. In most cases, these rules first became effective for public entities with revenues in excess of $100 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. Smaller public entities will be required to comply during the following two fiscal years.

F4: To date in Contra Costa County there has been little or no funding of the OPEB liabilities for most governmental entities offering retiree medical benefits, including County, school districts, cities, and special districts.

F5: Most larger County governmental employers provide their employees with extraordinarily generous retiree health benefits.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)

R1: Option 1. Implement a new defined contribution type retiree healthcare program for employees hired after July 1, 2009. Under this type of plan, the government employer would contribute annually an agreed upon amount into each covered employee’s separate account. This contribution would grow with investment earnings until withdrawn. Each covered employee would be entitled, at retirement, to draw from this account. The amount withdrawn would be used to purchase a health insurance policy of choice. There would be no employer responsibility to make any payments to, or on behalf of, the retired employee following his/her actual retirement.

R2: Option 2. Freeze the employer-provided portion of the retiree health plan for currently covered active employees, regardless of age. Any future cost increases would be borne by employees when they commence to receive their retiree healthcare benefits. (With the concurrence of legal counsel, this action could also be adopted for current retirees by freezing the employer’s payment at their current premium rate.)

R3: Option 3. Require greater benefit or premium cost sharing from retirees. This could take the form of increases in program deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance and out-of-pocket maximums paid for by retirees, and/or it could require that retirees commence paying a larger portion of the insurance premium amounts.

R4: Option 4. Require retirees to pay all, or a portion, of the cost of dependent coverage. These options are not all inclusive and are intended to be illustrative only. Individual Contra Costa County governmental entities will arrive at different plan design solutions that they deem appropriate for their employee groups and financial situations. The important point is that benefits provided under retiree healthcare plans for most County governmental employees must be reduced.

F6: Property taxes accounted for almost 93% of Contra Costa County tax revenues in the most recent fiscal year with sales and other taxes making up the balance of total tax revenues received. These locally derived taxes also represented a significant portion of the revenue of school districts, cities and special districts located in the County.

F7: The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County has committed to a future OPEB liability funding schedule for the County, including a commitment to contribute $20 million during the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Although no actual payments were made into the County’s OPEB Irrevocable Trust as of January 31, 2009, $10 million is held by the County Treasurer in a designated account.

F8: As of January 1, 2008 the County’s OPEB obligation was determined to be $2.367 billion, or almost four times the County’s covered payroll (annual payroll of active employees covered by the plan) of $610 million. Its Annual Required Contribution for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 was $195 million, or almost 32% of covered payroll.

F9: The calculation to determine a liability for future payments is primarily dependent upon the interest rate assumption. If the interest rate assumption is higher then the liability is lower; if the interest rate assumption is lower, then the liability is higher. If no funding mechanism is in place, and there is no expectation of putting money aside, the rules under GASB 45 require that a lower interest rate assumption be used. The interest rate assumption that was used for the calculation of the OPEB liability and ARC for the fiscal year 2007-2008 was 4.5%. The basis for allowing the use of a higher interest assumption rate is that the entity will earn a rate of return on investments that can be used to help pay for the future benefits. Because the funding commenced with the current fiscal year, the assumed interest rate was increased to 7.75% in 2008-2009. The result of the assumed interest rate increase was the OPEB liability dropped from $2.3 billion to 1.7 billion, almost solely due to the interest rate assumption change.

F10: Based on information available to the Grand Jury, the current Actuarial Accrued Liability for OPEB benefits due to employees of all larger Contra Costa County local governmental entities, including those promised by the County, school districts, cities and special districts, now exceeds $3.1 billion. These liabilities are summarized and shown graphically as follows: Liabilities of Contra Costa County and Local Government Entities Contra Costa County $1,737,000,000 Contra Costa County School Districts 1,060,000,000 Contra Costa County Cities 199,000,000 Contra Costa County Special Districts 124,000,000 Actuarial accrued liability for OPEB benefits $3,120,000,000 Liabilities of CC County and Local Governments $3,500,000,000 $3,000,000,000 $2,500,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $500,000,000 $- Total County School Cities Special Liabilities Districts Districts

F11: Based on the same sources, the current Annual Required Contribution (ARC) and the actual expense recognized (generally the current year’s payment of health, dental and vision insurance premiums for retirees receiving benefits) are summarized as follows: Annual Required Contribution Contra Costa County $129,638,000 Contra Costa County School Districts 73,326,000 Contra Costa County Cities 21,199,000 Contra Costa County Special Districts 21,161,000 Total annual required contributions under GASB 45 $245,324,000 Annual Actual Expense Recognized (Actual Contributions) Contra Costa County $36,000,000 Contra Costa County School Districts 31,699,000 Contra Costa County Cities 6,986,000 Contra Costa County Special Districts 8,663,000 Total actual annual expenses paid for OPEBs $83,348,000 Annual Required Contributions Versus Actual Contributions $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $- County School Cities Special Districts Districts Required Actual

F12: As the summary numbers shown in Finding 11 indicate, County local governments are currently only paying 34% ($83,348,000 / $245,324,000) of the Annual Required Contribution set forth in GASB 45. This means that the unpaid balance of the Annual Required Contribution, ($245,324,000 - $83,348,000) $161,976,000, is being transferred to future taxpayers. This transfer to future taxpayers takes place every year.

F13: The 2007-2008 property tax revenue for the entire County was $2.077 billion. Projections are that this amount will decline significantly during the next several fiscal years because of the current widespread decline in property values.

F14: Larger Contra Costa County governmental entities with identified retiree healthcare plans are: • County: Contra Costa County • School Districts: Lafayette Elementary, Acalanes Union, John Swett Unified, Mt. Diablo Unified, Pittsburg Unified, San Ramon Valley Unified, West Contra Costa Unified and Contra Costa Community College. • Cities: Antioch, Brentwood, Concord, Martinez, Pittsburg and Richmond. • Special Districts: Central Contra Costa Sanitary, Delta Diablo Sanitary and East Bay Regional Parks.

F15: Recent information provided to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors makes clear that tax revenues and state support to the County are likely to decline for at least the next several years. This reduction in projected revenue has been currently offset by County Departments reducing their budgeted 2009-2010 full-time equivalent headcount by 191 public safety, health care and social services positions. If the County were to commence fully funding its ARC, its only practical source of near term future funding would be to further lower its staffing levels.

F16: On May 6, 2008, the Contra Costa County Administrator presented the following challenge to the Board of Supervisors: “The ever growing health care expense demand on the general fund will consume our ability to provide public services. Given the size of our liability, we cannot responsibly eliminate enough programs to fund our current health care programs; we must contain and change the County’s cost of health care.” CONCLUSIONS A number of County governmental entities do not offer their employees retiree healthcare benefits. Moreover, in a few cases local governments have substantially funded those benefits. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report do not pertain to them. A significant number of the larger governmental entities in the County offer very generous retiree healthcare benefits, and most have provided little or no funding to pay for those benefits. These local governments must adopt a new paradigm – a new framework to deal with this issue. Given the present economic environment facing Contra Costa County government entities, funding the accumulated and accruing benefits under these plans is not a realistic option. The Grand Jury concurs with the inherent solution to the challenge made by the County Administrator to the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 2008 - the only practical solution for both the County, and other affected County governmental entities, is to reduce the benefits offered under these programs. The plan documents, plan descriptions and underlying legal documents differ widely. Retiree healthcare benefits are frequently subject to collective bargaining. Consequently, each separate governmental entity will have to consult with its own counsel and advisors to determine what design changes should be made or negotiated for its various employee groups. A “business-as-usual” position with respect to continuing to offer the same retiree health plans is not a sustainable strategy.

May 31, 2008 — Aquatic Junkyards Exist in Contra Costa County

23 páginas 33 hallazgos 5 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 33 hallazgos

F1: Sections 663 and 663.5 of the California Harbors and Navigation Code specify that county sheriffs have the primary law enforcement responsibility for waterways within their respective jurisdictions.

F2: Contra Costa County (County) shares waterway boundaries with Sacramento, Solano, San Joaquin, and Alameda Counties.

F3: The County is responsible for approximately 200 miles of waterways and shorelines.

F4: These waterways are important to the county and the state, not only because they are the source of drinking and irrigation water for millions of the state’s citizens, but because they also offer fishing and recreational opportunities.

F5: There are places in the County where waterways, shorelines, and adjacent land are littered with debris, abandoned vessels, docks and pilings, gutted mobile homes, and houses that have fallen into the waterway. 3

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: Within six months of this report, the Supervisors and the Sheriff create a joint task force to develop and present to the Supervisors a plan for the cleanup up of the County’s waterways and adjoining shoreline. Task force members should include, but may not be limited to, representatives from the Office of the Sheriff and the County’s Public Works, Building Inspection, and Health Services Departments.

F6: Residences like those shown below have been constructed adjacent to Delta waterways without the necessary building permits and are not in compliance with County codes in regard to electrical wiring, plumbing, sewerage disposal, treated water, fire protection, and building integrity. 4

F7: Derelict vessels and many other abandoned objects in the County’s waterways contain toxic substances. Examples include creosote-treated pilings, lead-acid batteries, fuel tanks, asbestos, and lead paint.

F8: Abandoned commercial vessels in the waterways include tugboats, commercial fishing boats, schooners, houseboats, barges, cranes, and dredges. Some vessels exceed 300 feet in length. These vessels are often accompanied by junk and debris, including butane and propane tanks, kitchen appliances, tires, barrels, scrap iron, and portable toilets.

F9: Abandoned creosote-covered pilings, some with the remnants of buildings on them, number in the thousands. 5 6

F10: The Office of the Sheriff (Sheriff) reports that some individuals have purchased derelict vessels and moved them into out-of-the-way locations. These derelict vessels are then inhabited in violation of County codes. Squatters also have moved into abandoned vessels. They pollute the waterways with garbage and untreated human sewage.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: The Supervisors direct the joint task force to address the following elements in its Delta cleanup plan: a. The identification of state, federal, and adjoining county agencies, and representatives that are responsible for monitoring and addressing problems related to the Delta waterways, especially those involving abandoned recreational and commercial vessels, navigational hazards, and possible health and water quality issues. b. The identification of all state, federal, private sector, and non-profit organization funding that might be available to allow for the more timely and efficient removal of all abandoned vessels, dilapidated buildings, pilings, junk, and debris from the water and adjacent shoreline. c. An investigation of the practicality of establishing a non-profit organization to assist in fund raising efforts in support of the effort to clean-up the County’s waterways and adjacent shoreline. d. An investigation of the practicality of establishing a program similar to the state’s “Adopt-a-Highway” effort to allow citizens and the private sector to actively and visibly support the effort to clean-up the County’s waterways. e. An investigation of the practicality of establishing and promoting a dedicated telephone tip line to allow citizens to report abandoned vessels and aquatic dump sites that are detrimental to the County’s waterways.

F11: Counties adjacent to Contra Costa have not enacted ordinances that would enable them to participate with Contra Costa in removing derelict or abandoned vessels in the Delta.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F12: Several County agencies administer regulations pertaining to the waterways. The primary agencies are the Sheriff and the Building Inspection Department.

F13: Four of the County’s five supervisorial districts have waterways that are polluted by abandoned watercraft, junk, and debris as shown on the following map.

F14: The Sheriff started patrolling the Delta in the 1960’s with its Marine Patrol Unit (MPU).

F15: The Sheriff began removing abandoned recreational vessels from the Delta in 1987.

F16: The County’s Building Inspection Department is responsible for the removal of derelict vessels, illegal buildings, junk, and debris on land adjacent to the waterways. 7 8

F17: Since 1997, the California Department of Boating and Waterways has provided grants to the County for derelict vessel removal. The use of this money is restricted to the removal of recreational vessels as well as pilings that are a threat to navigation.

F18: The Sheriff is not aware of the total number and location of all abandoned commercial vessels located in the County’s waterways.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R5: The Sheriff conducts a semi-annual inventory of all abandoned vessels to provide additional evidence and documentation to support the department’s requests for additional funding. 14

F19: Over the past 10 years, the MPU has removed an average of 30 abandoned recreational vessels per year.

F20: The MPU is funded by state boat registration fees, the County’s general fund, and the state’s Boating and Waterways Agency. The MPU annual budget is approximately $1.3 million. The budget does not include funding for the Sheriff’s Air Support Unit. This unit is funded through the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.

F21: The MPU has 11 full-time-equivalent staff consisting of 4½ deputy sheriffs, one sergeant, 1½ staff in the air support unit, one lieutenant, and three full-time equivalent positions to provide part-time support. The MPU has seven boats, six vehicles, six trailers, and two helicopters.

F22: In fiscal year 2007-08, the MPU received a grant of $102,000 from the California Department of Boating and Waterways for derelict recreational vessel removal. This grant requires 10% matching funds from the County.

F23: The Sheriff has participated, and continues to participate with state legislators, to develop maritime policing legislation. 9

F24: The California Department of Motor Vehicles charges a $20 registration fee every two years for recreational boats, but it fails to track ownership changes. After seven years of registration inactivity, the records are purged.

F25: Abandoned vessels are often stripped of state registration numbers. This makes it impossible to identify vessel owners to charge them for removal of their property.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F26: Based on available funds, 30 derelict recreational vessels are scheduled for removal in fiscal year 2007-08.

F27: Submerged derelict vessels are difficult to locate, identify, and remove. The cost to remove and dispose of sunken vessels is approximately twice the cost to remove and dispose of floating abandoned vessels. 10

F28: There is no County funding source for the removal of derelict commercial vessels. 11 12

Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)

R3: The Supervisors identify the amount of general funds necessary to support the recommendations of the task force, including those that may be required to match state, federal, and private sector grants.

R4: The Supervisors and the Sheriff should be proponents of legislation and actions regarding the identification and removal of both recreational and commercial derelict or abandoned vessels and other debris. They should consider advocating for an increase to the state’s recreational watercraft registration fee and for a change in state law that would allow the additional revenue to be used for the abatement of abandoned commercial as well as recreational vessels.

F29: No County agencies are charged with removing garbage, debris, and junk from within the County’s waterways.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

F30: The Sheriff is authorized by County ordinance to cite individuals who litter the waterways.

F31: The MPU spends an average of 20 hours of staff time per week dealing with abandoned vessels. This represents 15% of the MPU’s total staff hours.

F32: The MPU assists other County departments and agencies by providing water transportation to help them fulfill their duties.

F33: The Health Services Department’s Environmental Health Division and the Building Inspection Department do not proactively address code violations on or adjacent to the County’s waterways. They only respond to complaints. * Photographic sources for this report were the Contra Costa County Grand Jury, the Office of the Sheriff, and Contra Costa County’s Geographic Information System. Images provided by the County Geographic System were licensed through Pictometry International Corporation. Additional photographs appear as an appendix. CONCLUSIONS

May 28, 2008 — Contra Costa County Public Record Request Compliance

6 páginas 15 hallazgos 3 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 15 hallazgos

F1: The California Public Records Act (PRA), Government Code Section 6250, was enacted in 1968 by the state legislature. At that time, the legislature declared, “that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.”

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: Within six months of this report, County Administrative Bulletin 120.4 be reviewed and revised as necessary to comply with legislative changes and court decisions. The revised bulletin also should include: a. A requirement that each department’s written policy with regard to public record requests be conspicuously posted or otherwise made available at each County office. b. A standard form for use in all County offices for requests to inspect or obtain copies of public records. c. A policy and procedure to allow public access to records that are accessible only by computer. d. The public’s rights under the PRA should be emphasized rather than the exceptions to the law. Section IV of County Bulletin 120.4 should appear as section I. The County’s duty to assist members of the public should also be described. 5

F2: The PRA has been amended from time to time, and the courts have interpreted and applied its provisions in many published appellate court opinions. In a recent opinion, the California Supreme Court described the importance of access to 2 public records as follows: “Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy.” International Federation v. Superior Court, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 693, 697. (2007)

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: Within six months of this report, all County departments be required to have written polices and procedures, based on revised Administrative Bulletin 120.4, intended to ensure consistent, timely, and lawful responses to requests for public records.

F3: The PRA provides that the public shall have access to all public records except for selected records that are specifically exempt from disclosure. Exempt records include personnel files, medical records, and many types of records that are part of ongoing criminal investigations.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: Within six months of this report, all employees that interact with the public at County offices where records are maintained receive training as to the County’s responsibilities, including County and department procedures, to comply with the California Public Records Act.

F4: Contra Costa County (County) and its various departments and functional organizations are subject to the PRA and must comply with its terms.

F5: Grand Jurors, who did not identify themselves as such, visited 12 County offices and asked to inspect or to secure copies of records that were known, or were likely, to be kept in those offices. Grand Jurors made a total of 17 separate record requests. Grand Jurors did not request records that were exempt from disclosure under the PRA. Requests were always made to the person who was the first point of contact at each office, usually a clerk or receptionist.

F6: Grand Jurors found that, in some instances, County departments and their staff members responded appropriately to requests for access to or copies of public records.

F7: Grand Jurors experienced other instances when the clerk or receptionist expressed no knowledge of the PRA, or the County’s duty to provide access to records. On one occasion, a Grand Juror was sent to another office, in a different building, that did not have the requested records. On several other occasions, first point of contact employees posed questions such as: “Why do you want it?” “Are you an attorney?” And, “Who are you with?” Other employees made statements such as: “I’m swamped right now,” “I’m very busy,” and, “We are an impacted office.”

F8: On several occasions, Grand Juror requests for records were referred to a more senior clerk or office manager who was able to comply with the request. In one instance, the Deputy Director of Animal Services promptly met with the Grand Juror who made the request and the records were produced for inspection. Not all County offices visited had senior staff members available to handle requests.

F9: The County’s Animal Services Department was not always responsive to PRA requests. One Grand Juror made a written request for copies of records on wild animals picked up in 2007, including information as to whether any had tested positive for rabies, and paid the requested $1.00 copying fee. The request was made at the front desk, on a busy day, and the records had not been received four months after the request. No explanation or refund has been offered.

F10: On December 18, 2003, the County Administrator issued Administrative Bulletin 120.4, entitled, “Public Access to County Records.” The preamble states, “The purpose of this bulletin is to inform County departments about their legal responsibility under the California Public Records Act…with regard to requests for inspection of or copies of County records.” Knowledge of the bulletin’s 3 existence, and compliance with the policies and procedures detailed therein, is inconsistent from one County office to another.

F11: County Administrative Bulletin 120.4 contains information organized under the following major headings: I. Confidential documents and documents not required to be disclosed II. Confidential legal documents III. Employee information disclosure IV. Access to public records Sections I through III deal with exceptions to the law requiring disclosure; i.e., the reasons public access to records may be denied. Only section IV outlines how the public is to be afforded its rights under the PRA.

F12: California Government Code Section 6253.1 states that the public agency shall assist the member of the public to make a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records by making certain specified actions to the extent they are reasonable under the circumstances. County Administrative Bulletin 120.4 is silent on this duty.

F13: County Administrative Bulletin 120.4 includes a policy that requests for public records ‘should be made in writing.’ Grand Jurors found that four of the offices visited, Environmental Health, the Animal Services and Building Inspection departments, and the Assessor required written requests, and had forms available for that purpose.

F14: A Grand Juror asked representatives of two County law offices to permit inspection of any written policies related to the e-mail transmission of confidential documents. The District Attorney’s office produced County Administrative Bulletin 120.4. The Public Defender’s office advised that no policy existed.

F15: Some County records are only accessible by computer. The PRA also applies to such records. In one instance, a Grand Juror asked the General Services Department to inspect maintenance records on County automobiles, specifically a hybrid model. An employee in the automotive maintenance office informed the Grand Juror that all the records were computerized. After purportedly conferring with a superior, the employee informed the Grand Juror that the records could not be viewed because no computer terminal was available for use by the public, and that only County employees had access to the database. CONCLUSIONS The scope of the Grand Jury’s investigation with regard to public record access was limited. However, the Grand Jury believes the problems identified are neither isolated nor unique and that further investigation would identify similar problems in other County offices. The employees that were contacted during this investigation exhibited an inconsistent knowledge of the PRA and the County’s obligations under the PRA. Some employees responded appropriately, others did not. Some staff members exhibited suspicion regarding the motives for public record requests. These responses appeared intended to discourage requests. On one occasion, an employee erroneously claimed that non- County employees are not permitted to view public information on a County computer screen. Employee workload is not an acceptable excuse for the failure to comply with the PRA. Workload should not be cited to suggest that the request cannot or will not be honored. The following recommendations, if adopted by the Board of Supervisors and implemented by County staff, will ensure that the public has timely and convenient access to public records as mandated by state law. The recommendations will not impose an unreasonable burden on the County with regard to financial or human resources.

May 22, 2008 — Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 0801 Compliance and Review Committee Report The Contra Costa County Civil Grand

Continuity Report 67 páginas 30 hallazgos 1 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 30 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. Response: Agree.

Página 2

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). Response: Agree.

Página 2

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.” Response: Agree.

Página 2

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. Response: Agree.

Página 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. Response: Partially disagree. The Supervisors are not eligible to earn the paid leave credits earned by other County employees, such as vacation, sick leave, administrative leave, and floating holiday leave. 2 6. 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. Response: Agree, with the clarification that for 2007, each Supervisor serves on between 20 to 25 regional boards, commissions, and authorities.

Página 2

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 prior to their reaching the age of 19, and that they also are dependents as defined by IRS regulations. Response: Agree with clarification. The County’s requirement is that the dependent is an IRS Qualifying dependent. IRS regulations (IRS Publication 501) require (with some exceptions) student status for dependents over age 19.

Página 9

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. Response: Agree, with the clarification that the high end of the department head salary range includes special differential pay for on-call duty.

Página 3

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

Página 3

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. Response: Agree.

Página 3

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 3 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. Response: Agree that compared to counties of similar population and budget, Contra Costa Board member compensation was the lowest in October 2006 when excluding retirement and health benefits.

Página 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). Response: Agree that in October 2006, Contra Costa Board member compensation was the lowest when excluding retirement and health benefits and when adjusted by the cost- of-living index.

Página 4

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: 4 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, (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%. Response: Agree.

Página 4

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 Response: Agree that Contra Costa County Supervisors’ staff positions have the lowest salaries among similar counties when excluding retirement, health, and other benefits. Note however that a comparison of Supervisor staff and job classifications among similar counties is not as simple as comparing the Supervisors’ salaries. Although the staff positions are “at will”, they are eligible for the same array of benefits as County management employees. Benefits such as retirement, group health insurance, and retiree health figure significantly in the total compensation package. Consequently, a comparison of staff positions compensation should consider all material compensation factors. Moreover, the job classifications and requirements for the staff positions may 5 differ significantly from county to county depending on how the Board and County Administrative functions are organized.

Página 5

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. Response: Agree. Supervisors staffing and salary levels have been maintained at consistent service levels since 2001. Budget allocations have been increased commensurate with cost-of-living and employee benefits increases.

Página 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. Response: Agree.

Página 11

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. Response: Agree with clarification. It is our intent to upgrade the current PeopleSoft Human Resources System to include the Benefits Administration module. It would not be a new system, but the inclusion of functions currently available through PeopleSoft/Oracle.

Página 11

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

Página 18

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. BOS Response: Agree. OS Response: Agree.

Página 18

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 18 sworn officer requirement. The next to last, San Bernardino County, eliminated the requirement 20 years ago. BOS Response: Agree. OS Response: Agree.

Página 18

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. BOS Response: Agree. OS Response: Agree.

Página 19

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. BOS Response: Agree. OS Response: Agree.

Página 19

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. BOS Response: Agree. OS Response: Agree.

Página 19

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. BOS Response: Agree, with confirmation from the District Attorney. OS Response: Agree. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. 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. BOS Response: Has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future once funding is available. County funding is not available for the expansion of criminalist staffing in the upcoming Fiscal Year 07/08. The Sheriff’s Office is actively pursuing federal and state grants to augment existing staff pending availability of county funding. OS Response: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The timeframe to implement this recommendation can not be accurately determined given the current budget constraints. The Sheriff’s Office is supportive of the recommended increase in the number of authorized and budgeted criminalists. However, county funding is required to meet this recommendation. The Sheriff’s Office is actively pursuing federal and state grants to augment existing staff until county funding becomes available. County funding is not available for the expansion of criminalist staffing in the upcoming fiscal year 07/08.

Página 19

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. BOS Response: Agree. SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: The Agency has an agreement with the County that recognizes the needs of San Pablo for new, safe development to offset the current blighted state of the community. This is standard practice throughout the State of 40 California, and these revenues are being used wisely to assist the community with the lowest per capita income in the Bay Area. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The City of San Pablo agrees with the finding, but wishes to clarify that there have been no “tax increases” in the normal sense of the word; rather, redevelopment activities within the City result in increased property tax revenue based on higher assessed valuations by the County Assessor’s office. Further, the City agreed to supplement the redevelopment monies provided to CCCFPD by “negotiation or statute” by an additional $180,000 for fiscal year 2006-2007.

Página 40

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. BOS Response: Agree. SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: The County Board of Supervisors sets the budget that delivers the service level for fire protection throughout all of the CCCFPD. Only the Board can address this question. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The City of San Pablo partially disagrees. The portion of the finding disagreed with concludes that three firefighters are not sufficient to fight a structure fire, placing occupants, contents and structure at risk “in every case.” Structure fires presumably vary by size, type of construction materials, contents of the building, and whether they contain fire sprinkler systems. The City disagrees that the San Pablo engine company as presently constituted is insufficient in every case to fight a structure fire.

Página 41

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. BOS Response: Agree. In addition, the presence of Casino San Pablo has increased the number of calls. In 2004, CCCFPD responded to 28 emergency calls at the Casino. As the Casino expanded, the number of required responses increased, with 101 responses in 2006. RCC Response: Respondent partially disagrees with the finding. Richmond’s ratio is about one for 3875 41 SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: San Pablo is part of the CCCFPD which is governed by the County Board of Supervisors who establishes funding and service levels. San Pablo is paying up to $180,000 per year to the CCCFPD to cover expenses owed to Richmond for out-of-area service calls. Additionally, perhaps the composition of the area to be protected dictates the number of firefighters. As an example, Richmond and Rodeo must be prepared to respond to refinery fires.. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The City of San Pablo agrees with the finding.

Página 41

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. BOS Response: Agree. SPCC Response: We accept the Grand Jury’s finding.

Página 42

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. BOS Response: Agree. RCC Response: Respondent disagrees with the finding. Richmond Fire discontinued automatic aid with the county for a number of reasons. The biggest challenge was that the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District was not interested in working collaboratively with us to resolve response issues. There was also no interest in training, common dispatching, working the same shift schedule, or compensation to the city of Richmond for services provided. The Richmond Fire Department was expected to provide fire service into North Richmond, San Pablo, East Richmond Heights and El Sobrante at no cost to the County (See #26).

Página 42

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: or otherwise. BOS Response: Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented at the appropriate time when the system costs are identified for each agency. RCC Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Richmond has signed a letter of intent and a joint powers agreement to become a member of the East Bay Regional Communicators System. Funds for this purpose are in the current budget. 5. That Richmond complete its study of the AVL system, and join the AVL system within six months of this report. BOS Response: Required from the Richmond City Council. RCC Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) system would have to be an added component to the New World Computer Aided Dispatch System utilized in the Richmond Police/Fire Dispatch Center. The estimated cost of this system is $45,000. Additional funding would be required before acquisition and implementation occurred. The Richmond Fire Department has already been programmed into Contra Costa County Fire’s AVL system and has been an active user for over a year. 6. 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. BOS Response: Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented as soon as possible. A temporary agreement is currently in effect between Contra Costa County Fire District and Richmond Fire. RCC Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Richmond Fire Department on behalf of the City of Richmond is working with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District to finalize a permanent automatic aid agreement in the next six months. The current preliminary automatic aid agreement has a formula for payment that will reimburse the appropriate fire agency for the net difference in calls. 7. 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. BOS Response: Requires further analysis. The mutual/automatic aid system is designed to provide assistance to other agencies without compensation. The system has worked successfully for decades, and has leveraged the resources of fire districts to the benefit of all. The current one year agreement with the City of Richmond is an anomaly. If a contractual relationship is necessary to assure automatic aid response upon expiration of the contract with the City of Richmond, then the Fire District will conduct an analysis to identify available options SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: 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. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The recommendation will not be implemented as far as a formal written agreement within such time period. The City did not enter into 45 a written agreement earlier this year based on the lack of contractually definite terms and provisions specifying the exact obligations of each party; and further out of a fiscally responsible desire to review services provided under the automatic aid relationship. Due to the uncertainties and lack of specific information involved, and the lack of time before the deadline expressed in the Grand Jury’s recommendation, the City believes that a written agreement cannot be finalized in such a short period. The City Council has, however, demonstrated its commitment to ensure that San Pablo pays its fair share of fire protection costs. It adopted Resolution 2007-21, which provides that San Pablo will pay its pro-rata share of automatic aid responses from the City of Richmond Fire Department into the City of San Pablo for fiscal year 2006-2007. Again, the San Pablo City Council has publicly expressed its wiliness, and demonstrated its commitment to support the CCFPD to the extent fair and necessary, as witnessed by Resolution 2007-21. The City unilaterally continued this obligation by appropriating $180,000 in its budget for fiscal year 2007-2008. As further information becomes available, the city is not adverse to memorializing this commitment into a fair written agreement. 8. 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. BOS Response: Requires further analysis. The Fire District will invite the City of San Pablo to join with them in assessing the fire protection and medical emergency response needs of the city of San Pablo, including Casino San Pablo. Within six months, the Fire District will produce a plan on how to meet those needs, including capital improvement, staffing and financing options. SPCC Response: Only the Board of Supervisors can respond to this recommendation. 9. 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. BOS Response: Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in accordance to the Grand Jury recommended time frame. The Fire District will invite the City of San Pablo to join with them in assessing options for constructing and financing a new fire station in San Pablo. The District will formulate its recommended plan with six months. SPCC Response: Only the Board of Supervisors can respond to this recommendation. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 0708 MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY! THE COUNTY DRIFTS EVER CLOSER TO THE “OPEB” ROCKS Growing Retiree Health Care Costs Demand Board of Supervisors Action

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. BOS Response: Agree. RCC Response: Respondent agrees with the finding. SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: San Pablo assumes that the CCCFPD amount is to reimburse Richmond for calls into the unincorporated areas to which Richmond responds. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The City of San Pablo agrees with the finding.

Página 42

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

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. BOS Response: Agree. RCC Response: Respondent agrees with the finding. SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: San Pablo has no jurisdiction in this area. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The City of San Pablo agrees with the finding. The City has not studied fire consolidation and has no information regarding this subject.

Página 43

May 20, 2008 — Should the Mt. Diablo Health Care District Be Dissolved?

8 páginas 28 hallazgos 2 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 28 hallazgos

F1: The District was formed in 1948, and in the early 1950’s, acquired the Concord Community Hospital, later known as Mt. Diablo Medical Center. The District owned and operated the hospital until 1996.

F2: The District boundaries encompass the cities of Concord, Martinez, portions of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill, and adjacent unincorporated areas.

F3: The District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors (Board) elected by the voters within the District.

F4: In 1996, under threat of financial insolvency, the District transferred the Mt. Diablo Medical Center and all related property and assets to John Muir Medical Center (now John Muir Health), a private, non-profit corporation. Mt. Diablo Medical Center is now operated as the Concord Campus of John Muir Health. 2

F5: Since 1996, the District has not owned or operated a hospital and has not provided hospital, physician or emergency medical services of any kind.

F6: The District has not had permanent, full-time employees for many years. In March of 2008, a part-time clerical employee was hired. The 2008 budget for this employee is $12,000. Board members have performed all District administrative tasks, and some Board members have been occasional volunteers disseminating health-related information and services in the community. John Muir Health provides the District with office, meeting, and conference space.

F7: The primary source of District income comes from property taxes levied on District homeowners and businesses. The District also receives an annual $25,000 subsidy from John Muir Health.

F8: The District’s total annual revenues are as follows: Year Property Tax Revenue Total Revenue 2004 $203,594 $236,783 2005 223,369 266,869 2006 255,649 296,638 2007* 241,000 266,200 2008* 241,000 266,000 Total five-year revenue: $1,322,490** *Budgeted **Total revenues include miscellaneous income; e.g., interest earnings

F9: District administrative and operating expenses have consumed nearly all of its revenues over the past four years. Expenses have included the cost of elections, legal and audit fees, Board member stipends, and the premiums for medical and dental insurance provided to current and retired directors. A percentage of expense summary, based on audited financial statements, follows: 2004 2005 2006 Post-Retirement Costs 0% 0% 46% 3 Election Costs 40% 0% 24% Insurance 17% 45% 14% Professional Fees 4% 20% 0% Legal Fees 27% 16% 9% Director Stipends 5% 7% 0% Other Expenses 7% 12% 7% Total: 100% 100% 100%

F10: In 2004, 2005, and 2006, the District did not spend any of its total revenues to provide or advance health care for the District’s taxpayers or residents. The District spent 100% of its total revenues for administrative and operating expenses.

F11: Budget projections and unaudited accounting statements for a part of 2007 reveal a similar pattern as that shown for 2004-2006; no money was spent for health care.

F12: Some District board members participated in volunteer activities during 2004- 2007 at no cost to the District. For example, volunteers distributed health- related brochures and conducted blood pressure screenings. They offered such services a half dozen times in 2007 at community activities such as farmers’ markets. District director volunteers also promoted an anti-truancy program for local students.

F13: The District claims credit for a single $5000 donation in 2007 to the nursing program at California State University East Bay. The purpose was a scholarship. The donation was not a budget item, but represented re-directed funds that reportedly had been set aside for a director’s stipend.

F14: The scholarship donation is the only expenditure the District has made for a health-related purpose since 1996.

F15: On February 8, 2008, the District’s Board adopted a budget for calendar year

F16: The parties to the 1996 agreement between the District and John Muir Health continue to perform their obligations pursuant to their agreement.

F17: John Muir Health created a Community Health Fund pursuant to the agreement, to which it has made contributions of $1 million annually intended for community grants to improve public health.

F18: The District contends that under the terms of the 1996 agreement with John Muir Health, it has continuing responsibilities. For example, the agreement provides that certain defaults by John Muir Health would result in termination of the agreement and permit the District to recover assets from John Muir Health, including the Mt. Diablo Medical Center building and property transferred by the District in 1996.

F19: There is no suggestion by the District in the public record, including the District’s submissions to LAFCO, that there is any reasonably foreseeable possibility of default by John Muir Health under the 1996 agreement that would trigger the rights reserved by the District to recover the hospital. John Muir Health recently began a major addition to its Concord campus, an event that makes such a default highly unlikely.

F20: The District controls neither the board of directors of John Muir Health nor the Community Health Fund established through the 1996 merger agreement.

F21: The District and John Muir Health are currently negotiating another agreement. This proposal would establish a conduit to provide grant funds to the District to be passed through the District to selected organizations. A one- year agreement is likely. The District would incur administrative expenses in its role as a conduit for the grants.

F22: As part of the arrangements to secure the grant contract with John Muir Health, the District’s 2008 budget line item entitled “Community Activities” was increased from $70,000 to $130,000, effective May 1, 2008. The District 5 also has plans to hire a part-time executive director to administer the anticipated grant program. A new budget line item, also effective May 1, 2008, allocates $39,996 for a “CEO/Administrator.” As of that date, the District had not created a job description for the new position.

F23: The District’s revised budget, as of May 1, 2008, calls for a total annual operating budget of $328,300. Anticipated 2008 revenues remain unchanged, at $266,200.

F24: The Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is responsible for studying special districts and the services they provide. LAFCO accomplishes this by completing periodic Municipal Services Reviews (MSR). Typically, the MSR process is completed every five years for special districts such as the Mt. Diablo Health Care District.

F25: In August 2007, LAFCO completed its MSR for the District. While it did not recommend dissolution of the District, LAFCO recognized that additional scrutiny was warranted and directed the District to provide it with an interim report in 2008 on its activities and expenditures.

F26: Dissolution of the District may be initiated by either Board action or a petition of District voters.

F27: Upon dissolution, the District’s rights and obligations, both existing and contingent, would have to be taken over by another agency.

F28: The District has never adopted a plan for its dissolution, nor has the Board ever proposed a study of how to accomplish the District’s dissolution. CONCLUSIONS

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R1: Within six months of this report, the District’s Board of Directors drafts a written plan for the dissolution of the District. The dissolution plan should include: a. A detailed task list, including time estimates for completion, of all steps required to complete the dissolution in an orderly and efficient manner. b. Identification of problems related to District obligations to provide health insurance benefits to present and former District Board members, and recommended solutions to those problems. c. Identification of all possible future events that likely would be necessary to create either rights in, or obligations of, the District under the 1996 agreement with John Muir Health or any other long-term contracts. d. Evaluations of other public agencies that are qualified to act as successors to the District in connection with any possible future events or transactions, and corresponding rights and obligations.

R2: Within six months of this report, the District submits the dissolution plan to LAFCO as part of the report required by that agency during the District’s 2007 Municipal Services Review. 7

April 08, 2008 — Report on the Inspection of Detention Facilities in Contra Costa County

5 páginas 10 hallazgos 8 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos

F1: All the facilities inspected were found to meet or exceed the minimum inspection standards established by the State of California Corrections Standards Authority (CSA).

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: That the Sheriff expands wherever possible the use of the Custody Alternative Facility.

F2: Fees charged to detainees that qualify for the work-release program substantially support the Custody Alternative Facility in Martinez. In 2006, fees collected from detainees totaled more than $1 million, nearly 50% of the cost of operating the facility.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: That within six months of this report, the Sheriff works with the General Service Department to accomplish the installation of an electrically operated gate and security cameras at the entrance to the Marsh Creek Detention Facility.

F3: In 2006, detainees served approximately 118,000 custody alternative days. Had the detainees been obligated to serve their sentences in a detention facility, the additional cost to the county would have been approximately $13.5 million.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: That within six months of this report, the Sheriff works with the General Services Department to complete a feasibility study and to secure proposals that cover the available alternatives to alleviate the Martinez and West County Detention Facilities’ sewage drainage systems’ vulnerability.

F4: The entrance road leading to the Marsh Creek Detention Facility lacks a security gate and entrance monitoring security cameras. Such security devices would reduce the opportunities for contraband to enter the facility.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R4: That within six months of this report, the Sheriff obtains and uses additional copies of the Martinez and West County Detention Facilities inmate orientation videotape to include any other languages that account for a significant percentage of the inmate population.

F5: The design of the sewage drainage systems at the Martinez and West County Detention Facilities makes them vulnerable to inmate sabotage.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: That within six months of this report, the Sheriff completes a full evaluation of the costs and benefits of making the West County Detention Facility intake area fully operational.

F6: The orientation video shown to new inmates in the Martinez and West County Detention Facilities is recorded in English only.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: That within six months of this report, the Sheriff works with the County Health Services Department to complete a full evaluation of the costs and benefits of providing West County Detention Facility medical services similar to those available at the Martinez Detention Facility. 4

F7: The Martinez Detention Facility is the sole operational intake (i.e., processing) center for all County inmates. The area designed to handle West County Detention Facility processing of new inmates is not staffed. West County sheriff’s deputies and West County police department officers are required to transport detainees to the Martinez Detention Facility rather than the West County Detention Facility for processing. 3

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R7: That within six months of this report, the Probation Department works with the General Services Department to install security cameras in the classrooms at Juvenile Hall.

F8: The West County Detention Facility has limited medical services as compared with the Martinez Detention Facility.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R8: That within six months of this report, the Probation Department works with the County Health Services Department to complete a full evaluation of the costs and benefits of making specialized medical services available around the clock to detainees being treated with psychotropic drugs at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility.

F9: Classrooms in Juvenile Hall lack security cameras. The cameras would allow the staff to more closely monitor the classroom activities and reduce the number of disruptive incidents.

F10: The Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility is not an option for juveniles undergoing psychotropic drug therapy due to the lack of qualified, on-site, round the clock medical staff to monitor and manage such detainees. CONCLUSION While the facilities inspected were found to meet or exceed minimum CSA inspection standards, the preceding Grand Jury findings serve as the basis for the following

April 01, 2008 — Pension Plan Problems at Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District

6 páginas 24 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 24 hallazgos

F1: The Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District (District) was created by the voters in the District in 1951 pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 5780 et seq. The District covers approximately nine square miles, has approximately 22,000 voters, and provides parks, recreation facilities, open space, and recreation programs for District residents.

F2: A five-member Board of Directors (Board) governs the District. The Board is made up of five District citizens directly elected by District voters.

F3: The District’s 2007-2008 budget includes approximately $5.6 million in revenues, of which approximately $2.4 million is from property taxes on District residences and businesses. The District generates the balance through the provision of services such as sports activities, facility rentals, weddings, dances, and other functions.

F4: The District has 27 full-time employees, and also hires numerous part-time employees. The subject of this report affects approximately 1,400 former and current part-time employees.

F5: The District has well-kept parks and extensive recreation programs. A. The Former District Pension Plan

F6: Until 2004, the District, together with 10 similar districts across the state, invested funds in a pension plan on behalf of its part-time employees through the California Recreation District Employee Benefit Plan (Plan). An individual, who died in 2004, administered the Plan.

F7: The Plan was a 401(a) FICA alternative plan, in lieu of Social Security.

F8: The District’s elected Board provided minimal oversight of the Plan, its manager, funds, and investments.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R1: Require the Plan administrator (PARS) to provide the District with quarterly, detailed financial and investment performance reports.

R3: Within three months of this report, adopt a Board policy to provide fiduciary oversight of the District’s part-time employee pension Plan, not less than quarterly, to monitor Plan performance, establish and review investment guidelines, and monitor pension Plan policies.

F9: An audit performed in 2004, after the death of the Plan administrator, found that approximately $700,000 was missing. Of that amount, this District’s share of the loss was approximately $283,000. After legal proceedings began against the administrator’s estate, a settlement was negotiated in which this District received approximately $40,100. 3

F10: When concerns arose, the District withheld approximately $17,000 from contributions it would have otherwise been required to deposit under the terms of the Plan. This sum, plus the $40,100 received by the District as part of the settlement resulting from the suit brought against the Plan administrator’s estate, has been deposited in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). The LAIF is an investment alternative available to local governments and special districts through the California State Treasurer.

F11: The District has adopted a method to disburse the $57,100 held in the LAIF to eligible employees. The District was awaiting cooperation from other affected districts, but has voted to proceed even if the other districts do not.

F12: Following the death of the Plan administrator, legal proceedings revealed that he was neither bonded, nor covered by a type of insurance upon which the District could make a claim.

F13: Not including the above-referenced settlement amount, approximately $155,000, plus interest, remaining in the former Plan belongs to the District. This District has attempted, without success, to get the other districts to cooperate in an apportioned disbursement of the Plan’s funds.

F14: The District has not secured the services of an agent to manage and distribute the funds remaining in the former Plan. Since some of the retired employees have reached the IRS mandatory withdrawal age of 70½, the absence of an agent to handle legally required distributions exposes eligible retirees to potential IRS scrutiny.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R2: Within three months of this report, appoint a qualified employee to oversee the District’s part-time employee pension Plan.

R4: Within three months of this report, engage the services of a qualified agent to manage the funds in the former Plan, including the transfer of funds to qualified employees.

F15: The District has not replaced the money its employees lost due to the actions of the District’s Plan administrator. The District intends to replace only the money that was contributed by employees through their payroll deductions. The District does not intend to replace the money the District contributed to the Plan.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: Within three months of this report, publish and implement a strategy to fully reimburse the part-time employees for the funds (employee and District contributions) lost due to the former Plan manager’s malfeasance.

F16: The District’s failure to replace the missing funds for its employees may result in tax problems for employees as they reach retirement age. Since the IRS has no knowledge of the missing funds, it may calculate mandatory minimum withdrawal amounts based on the total amount reported by the District for each employee. The District is aware of this potential. Some affected employees already have reached retirement age.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F17: The failure of the District to replace missing funds for its employees may result in tax and /or legal implications to the District. The Plan was made available to part- time employees in lieu of Social Security. As with Social Security, the District has Plan funding obligations with which it has not complied. B. The New Plan

F18: On September 7, 2006, the District Board unanimously authorized the District manager to sign documents for the District that appointed Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) as the 457(a) FICA (Social Security) Alternative Retirement Plan’s Trust Administrator.

F19: On October 2, 2006 the District’s General Manager signed an Agreement for retirement fund services with Phase II Systems, a California corporation, which does business as PARS.

F20: PARS is not licensed to provide advice on tax, accounting, legal, investment or actuarial issues.

F21: At PARS’ suggestion, the District’s General Manager signed a contract with Union Bank by which the bank will act as the trustee of the pension funds for the District’s part-time employees.

F22: The Union Bank contract does not include effective limits on fees that may be incurred by the bank and charged to the District.

F23: The Union Bank contract permits the bank to make potentially risky investments, such as investing on margin (depositing only a small percentage of the funds actually at risk), and investing in its own paper (investing in the bank itself). Current District practices preclude that from happening.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: Continue to closely review proposed investment selections to ensure that pension funds are not invested in potentially risky instruments such as margin accounts or commercial paper issued by the trustee bank.

F24: The Union Bank contract permits oversight by the District, including investment options. The District Board has not done so. CONCLUSIONS

March 18, 2008 — Delinquent School Food Safety Inspections Place Student Health and Public School Lunch Program Funding at Risk

8 páginas 34 hallazgos 7 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 34 hallazgos

F1: Federal law (the 1946 Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act) requires the nation’s public schools to provide free or reduced-priced meals to students commensurate with family size and income standards. The act also requires public schools to follow associated federal and state guidelines to qualify for federal reimbursement for costs associated with providing meals covered under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).

F2: Federal law related to the NSLP was modified in 2004 to require at least twice per school year food safety inspections of school food service facilities by a qualified state or local government agency to identify and correct food safety problems in a timely and consistent manner. The new regulations took effect on July 1, 2005.

F3: Public schools that fail to comply with the twice per school year food service facility safety inspection requirement risk the loss of funding available to them through the NSLP.

F4: The Contra Costa County Office of Education reports that 253 of the County’s public schools participate in the National School Lunch Program.

F5: The County Health Services Department reports that as of October 2007, 40 (16%) of Contra Costa County’s 253 public school food service facilities had met the twice per school year food safety inspection requirement that took effect in 2005.

F6: Based on data provided by the school districts to the State of California, 217 Contra Costa County schools reported that during the 2006-2007 school year, 15 (7%) school cafeterias were inspected twice; 156 (72%) were inspected once; and, 46 (21%) were not inspected. A. The Environmental Health Division of the County Health Services Department

F7: The Environmental Health Division (EHD) is an enterprise division of the County Health Services Department (CHS). As such, it generates income from user fees sufficient to cover all its operating expenses. It does not require or receive any county General Funds.

F8: As an enterprise division, the EHD functions in a semi-autonomous fashion. It does not receive the same level of managerial oversight as other CHS divisions.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: That the County Health Services Department assume greater managerial oversight of its Environmental Health Division.

F9: The EHD is responsible for conducting food service safety inspections for restaurants, vehicle commissaries, community pools, spas, and school cafeterias. 3

F10: The EHD and CHS report that they were not aware until the fall of 2007 of the federal requirement that public schools participating in the National School Lunch Program are required to have twice per school year safety inspections of their food service facilities.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R2: That the County Health Services Department and Environmental Health Division complete the twice per school year public school food safety inspections required by law.

R5: That before the end of calendar year 2008, the Environmental Health Division of the County Health Services Department completes two food safety inspections at each of the public schools that participates in the National School Lunch Program.

F11: The EHD and CHS report that they were not aware until the fall of 2007 that public schools that fail to comply with the federal inspection requirement risk losing their eligibility to participate in the National School Lunch Program.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R2: That the County Health Services Department and Environmental Health Division complete the twice per school year public school food safety inspections required by law.

F12: The EHD and CHS report that they were not aware that a significant number of Contra Costa County public schools are not in compliance with the twice per school year safety inspection requirement.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R2: That the County Health Services Department and Environmental Health Division complete the twice per school year public school food safety inspections required by law.

F13: The CHS has assigned a higher priority to the inspection of healthcare facilities and commercial food service locations (e.g., hospitals and restaurants) where it believes health problems are more likely to occur. CHS has not identified public school food service facilities as a significant problem area, based on the lack of reported cases of illness resulting from unsafe foods at public schools.

F14: The EHD reports that its goal is to conduct twice per school year food safety inspections at all public school food service facilities in Contra Costa County.

F15: In a letter to the Walnut Creek School District dated February 22, 2006, the Environmental Health Division stated, “For the foreseeable future staffing shortages will prevent our agency from modifying our current goal of conducting at least one inspection.”

Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)

R2: That the County Health Services Department and Environmental Health Division complete the twice per school year public school food safety inspections required by law.

R3: That within three months of this report, the Environmental Health Division and County Health Services Department, complete an evaluation of the resources required to complete the twice per school year public school food safety inspections. 7

F16: In a letter to the Mt. Diablo Unified School District dated August 23, 2007, the EHD response to the request for two inspections stated, “Staffing shortages have prevented Contra Costa Environmental Health from inspecting school kitchens more than once per year. At current staffing levels the goal of Environmental Health is to inspect every retail food facility, including school kitchens, at least once per year, even at the cost of significant overtime expenditures. We believe we will achieve this goal in 2007.”

Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)

R2: That the County Health Services Department and Environmental Health Division complete the twice per school year public school food safety inspections required by law.

F17: The EHD reports that public schools receive food safety inspections at least once annually based on a pre-determined schedule.

F18: Public schools believe they are required to ask the EHD to conduct the required twice per school year food safety inspections.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R2: That the County Health Services Department and Environmental Health Division complete the twice per school year public school food safety inspections required by law.

F19: Public schools attribute their failure to comply with the requirement to secure two food safety inspections per school year to reports by the EHD of a shortage of inspectors. 4

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R2: That the County Health Services Department and Environmental Health Division complete the twice per school year public school food safety inspections required by law.

F20: During an August 2007 interview, the EHD stated that the 23 inspectors currently budgeted are adequate to complete their mission; and, that the division had not requested approval from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) for additional inspectors.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R4: That within three months of this report, the Environmental Health Division and County Health Services Department seek approval from the Board of Supervisors for the number of additional inspectors that would be required to complete the public school food safety inspections.

F21: During a December 2007 interview, the CHS reported that staffing shortages were being addressed. It was also reported that the EHD was working to fill a single food inspector position vacancy. Once they are fully staffed (23 inspectors), EHD will evaluate whether it has an adequate number of inspectors to conduct twice per school year public school food safety inspections, in addition to all required commercial food inspections.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

F22: In 2007, the EHD conducted more than 8600 food safety inspections. With the exception of public schools, the EHD charges for inspections using a tiered fee schedule; i.e., based on the size of the facility, the service(s) provided, etc. Fees range from $74 for a single commercial food cart to over $900 for a large restaurant.

F23: Section 6103 of the California Government Code prohibits the EHD from charging public schools fees for inspecting school food facilities. While the EHD does not charge fees for public school food safety inspections, it reports that it is not aware of the basis for not doing so.

F24: The CHS advises that there are no funding restrictions that would prevent EHD from hiring more staff, provided the BOS approves fee increases sufficient to cover the cost of hiring additional inspectors.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F25: The BOS approves the annual EHD budget, the inspection fee schedule, and associated policies for services provided by the division. B. The Contra Costa County Office of Education

F26: The elected Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools (Superintendent) heads the Contra Costa County Office of Education (COE).

F27: The Superintendent has oversight responsibilities for 18 county public school districts, 260 public schools, approximately 8500 teachers, and approximately 165,000 students.

F28: The COE is primarily responsible for monitoring teacher credentialing, approval of annual budgets and budget projections, preparation of school funding allocations, and periodic monitoring of budgeted funds and associated activities. 5

F29: The COE is aware of the federal requirement that public schools participating in the NSLP are required to have twice per school year safety inspections of their food service facilities.

F30: The COE is aware that a significant percentage of Contra County public schools have not received twice per school year safety inspections since the federal requirement was implemented.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R6: That the County Office of Education take a more proactive role in monitoring school compliance with the requirement for twice per school year food safety inspections of public schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program.

R7: That the County Office of Education and County Health Services Department coordinate their efforts to ensure compliance by all participating pubic schools with the twice per school year food safety inspection requirement.

F31: The COE is aware that the primary reason cited by the EHD for its inability to complete the required safety inspections is a shortage of inspectors.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F32: The COE does not have the legal authority to coordinate and/or monitor school compliance with required twice per school year safety inspection requirements related to food service facilities.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F33: The COE does have the authority to perform overall inspections of schools. If these inspections reveal sanitation problems anywhere on campus, the COE has the authority to alert the EHD to request further investigation.

F34: In the fall of 2007, the COE alerted the EHD regarding the condition of one county public school. At its request, the EHD conducted a follow-up inspection that focused on the school’s food service facility. CONCLUSIONS