Contra Costa County Grand Jury
2008-2009
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Cities in Contra Costa County range in population from less than 25,000 to more than 100,000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That elected officials be included in travel and expense policies.
F2:
Two cities responded that they did not have separate travel and expense policies for elected officials.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That attendees to city-paid conferences and seminars provide proof of attendance and deliver a report when appropriate.
F3:
Twelve cities responded that they required proof of attendance at city-paid events such as conferences and seminars.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That all cities, at minimum, follow IRS documentation guidelines for any expenses as an audit control and for budget planning.
F4:
Four cities did not require receipts for reimbursement of travel expenses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That management review and communicate city travel procedures on an annual basis to update and eliminate contradictions.
F5:
Some cities responded to the survey with answers that were not consistent with their written policies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That city guidelines promote the use of web sites to obtain the lowest rates available and to leverage government and group rates. A partial list of the government websites includes: • State Association of Counties www.csac.counties.org • State of California website www.ofa.dgs.ca.gov • California Travel Smart www.catravelsmart.com • League of California Cities www.cacities.org/travel REQUIRED RESPONSES:
F6:
Cities were budget conscious about arranging for transportation, hotel accommodations and other traveler needs, but guidelines varied significantly.
F7:
All city managers possess and use city credit cards. The control policies for using the cards appear to be adequate.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Mount Diablo Unified School District has a $286.3 million budget for the 2008-2009 fiscal year.
F2:
The Superintendent, rather than the Board, controlled the agenda for board meetings and decided what information to give or withhold from the Board.
F3:
Some Board members did not have a full understanding of their duties regarding their function and financial responsibilities to taxpayers. As a result, they failed to lead and instead, followed the Superintendent’s directives.
F4:
The District had not paid its correct federal payroll tax obligations for several years. In 2005 the District paid a levy of over $105,000 for payroll taxes, interest, and penalties. The Board did not approve these payments and was unaware of these issues because financial documents given to the Board lacked adequate detail. In 2008 the IRS informed the District that it may owe $833,000 in unpaid payroll taxes, interest, and penalties. This matter remains unresolved as of this writing.
F5:
ADP, a private corporation which had served as the District’s payroll tax processor, cancelled its contract in November 2006, because the District failed to fund the necessary amounts to provide for payment to the IRS.
F6:
The Board approved the creation of an in-house attorney position as a cost cutting measure. It directed that the attorney report to the Superintendent. This reporting relationship limited the volume and type of work provided to the Board by the in-house attorney.
F7:
Between 2002 and 2007, the District paid for work performed by an outside law firm. The law firm worked without a valid contract. This action violated District policy and the Board was unaware of this situation because renewal contracts were not forwarded by the Superintendent.
F8:
District policy dated 7/16/2002 requires Board approval for all bills over $25,000. The Superintendent frequently violated this policy by not submitting bills in excess of $25,000 to the Board. As one example, he unilaterally authorized payment in 2007 of a disputed bill for almost $110,000 to an outside legal firm.
F9:
The Superintendent withheld critical financial information from the Board.
F10:
The Superintendent inhibited the free exchange of information between various departments within the District. These actions undermined employee morale and, in some cases, led them to not report for work or to resign.
F11:
That the Board consider approving any unauthorized contracts retroactively to adhere with policy. CONCLUSION: The administrative and financial functions of the Mount Diablo School District have been in chaos. The Superintendent and a Board majority have allowed continuing policy violations, the non-payment of Federal Payroll Taxes, and the disbursement of monies without required Board approval. The subsequent time and attention devoted to these matters detracts from the District’s educational mission and contributes to continuing budget problems. In December 2008, the leadership of the Board changed. Since that time the Grand Jury has noticed positive movement. The Grand Jury strongly advocates its recommendations be adopted immediately.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
34 findings
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). BOS Response: Agree. OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the National Free Lunch Act.
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. BOS Response: Agree, with clarification. The federal law does not specify that local Environmental Health operations are required to perform the inspections or that they should proactively contact school districts. The law leaves up to the individual schools which government agency they choose to conduct the inspections. OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the National Free Lunch Act.
Related Recommendations (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. BOS Response: The recommendation will be implemented before the end of calendar year 2008. Our goal is to help schools by conducting inspections two times per school year when requested to do so. We will explore funding options to cover the associated costs.
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. BOS Response: The recommendation will be implemented before the end of calendar year 2008. Environmental Health will complete the necessary inspections as soon as possible.
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. BOS Response: Agree. OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the National Free Lunch Act. 3 4. The Contra Costa County Office of Education reports that 253 of the County’s public schools participate in the National School Lunch Program. BOS Response: Agree. OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the National Free Lunch Act.
Related Recommendations (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. BOS Response: The recommendation will be implemented before the end of calendar year 2008. Our goal is to help schools by conducting inspections two times per school year when requested to do so. We will explore funding options to cover the associated costs.
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. BOS Response: The recommendation will be implemented before the end of calendar year 2008. Environmental Health will complete the necessary inspections as soon as possible.
F4:
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. BOS Response: The recommendation will be implemented subject to identification of funding. We will continue to request positions as needed to cover workload requirements, subject to adequate funding.
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. BOS Response: Agree with clarification. The inventory of school cafeterias that Environmental Health used to plan for inspections included 222 food facilities reported by school districts. After the receipt of the Grand Jury Report, the Contra Costa County Office of Education reported 253.
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. BOS Response: Unable to respond. Environmental Health does not receive this information from the Contra Costa County school districts and therefore, does not know what information has been reported to the State of California. .Environmental Health has different numbers of school cafeterias, sites with multiple inspections, and sites not inspected. A. The Environmental Health Division of the County Health Services Department 7. 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. BOS Response: Partially disagree. The Environmental Health Division is not an “enterprise” division of the County Health Services Department since revenues and expenditures are not segregated into a separate fund with its own financial statements. However, the EHD is entirely funded by user fees without a County general fund allocation.
F7:
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. BOS Response: The recommendation has been implemented. Environmental Health is currently conferring with the County Office of Education to achieve better coordination and will continue to do so. OE Response: The County Office requests to be copied on district school food safety reports in order to assist districts with compliance issues. The County Superintendent of Schools will continue to collaborate with the County Health Services Department to ensure safe facilities for all students. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 0803 ATTENTION SPECIAL DISTRICTS! YOU TOO COULD FACE PENSION PLAN PROBLEMS Other Special Districts Could Learn From Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District’s Experience One or more Grand Jurors recused themselves due to a possible conflict of interest and did not participate in the preparation or approval of this report. Response from Board of Directors, Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District FINDINGS 1. 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. Response: The District agrees with the finding.
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. BOS Response: Disagree. As stated in the response to Finding #7 above, the Environmental Health Division is not an “enterprise division.” The Environmental 4 Health Director reports to and meets regularly with the Director of Health Services Department and discusses critical issues on a regular basis. The Director of Health Services oversees the budget of the Environmental Health Division, approves the Division Strategic Plan, important staffing matters, all pay and benefit recommendations, and the fee schedules proposed to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the County Health Services Department assume greater managerial oversight of its Environmental Health Division. BOS Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Environmental Health is a Division of the Department of Health Services and sufficient oversight is already provided. 9
F9:
The EHD is responsible for conducting food service safety inspections for restaurants, vehicle commissaries, community pools, spas, and school cafeterias. BOS Response: Agree with clarification. Environmental Health has no responsibility for food service safety inspections for community pools and spas unless they also include food facilities that require permits.
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. BOS Response: Disagree. EHD was aware prior to the fall of 2007 that schools were required to have two inspections per year, however the regulations specify that the inspections can be performed either by the state or by a local government agency.
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. BOS Response: Agree.
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. BOS Response: Agree with clarification. Environmental Health was not aware that any schools were out of compliance with the National School Lunch Program requirements because schools have the option of using a state agency to meet those requirements.
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. BOS Response: Agree.
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. BOS Response: Partially agree. Environmental Health would like to inspect each school cafeteria in Contra Costa County twice each school year (if requested by the school) and is pursuing options for funding.
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.” BOS Response: Agree.
Related Recommendations (2)
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. BOS Response: The recommendation has been implemented. One man-year (Full Time Equivalent) Environmental Health Specialist position, at an annual cost of $130,000 - $150,000 per year, will be required to complete twice per school year public school food safety inspections for 253 schools. County Health Services Department will explore funding options.
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. BOS Response: The recommendation will be implemented subject to identification of funding. We will continue to request positions as needed to cover workload requirements, subject to adequate funding.
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.” BOS Response: Agree.
Related Recommendations (2)
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. BOS Response: The recommendation has been implemented. One man-year (Full Time Equivalent) Environmental Health Specialist position, at an annual cost of $130,000 - $150,000 per year, will be required to complete twice per school year public school food safety inspections for 253 schools. County Health Services Department will explore funding options.
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. BOS Response: The recommendation will be implemented subject to identification of funding. We will continue to request positions as needed to cover workload requirements, subject to adequate funding.
F17:
The EHD reports that public schools receive food safety inspections at least once annually based on a pre-determined schedule. BOS Response: Disagree. Although it has been the objective of Environmental Health to inspect each school cafeteria in the inventory of known food facilities once a year, some cafeterias were not inspected every school year due to staff shortages. Inspections are unannounced, not scheduled.
Related Recommendations (2)
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. BOS Response: The recommendation has been implemented. One man-year (Full Time Equivalent) Environmental Health Specialist position, at an annual cost of $130,000 - $150,000 per year, will be required to complete twice per school year public school food safety inspections for 253 schools. County Health Services Department will explore funding options.
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. BOS Response: The recommendation will be implemented subject to identification of funding. We will continue to request positions as needed to cover workload requirements, subject to adequate funding.
F18:
Public schools believe they are required to ask the EHD to conduct the required twice per school year food safety inspections. BOS Response: Unable to respond. Although this may be true, Environmental Health has no knowledge of what “public schools believe.” 19. 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. BOS Response: Unable to respond. Although this may be true, Environmental Health has no knowledge of how “public schools attribute their failure to comply …” 20. 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. BOS Response: Disagree. During the August 2007 interview, Environmental Health staff stated that the 23 inspector positions then budgeted were considered to be adequate to cover inspections at permitted food facilities on the inventor. Only 18 of the 23 budgeted positions were actually filled at that time. EHS has experienced staffing shortages because of the difficulty in recruiting inspectors in the local labor market. In fact, the number of food facilities on the Environmental Health inventory has now increased, the number of employed inspectors is now 21, and Environmental Health is actively recruiting to fill the vacancies. Environmental Health has also requested two more inspector positions to help cover the increase in the number of permitted food facilities. These are dynamic, not static parameters.
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. Response: The District agrees with the finding.
F20:
PARS is not licensed to provide advice on tax, accounting, legal, investment or actuarial issues. Response: The District agrees with the finding. PARS as Trust Administrator handles agency personnel and participant inquiries, performs monthly valuations of participant accounts, administers the distribution process, handles all reporting to the Agency, the Participant, and the State Controller, and assures that the Trust complies with federal and state government reporting requirements. The District’s understanding is that an administrative entity such as PARS cannot legally be licensed to provide the advise referred to in the finding.
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. BOS Response: Agree.
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. BOS Response: Partially agree. Environmental Health also exempts from fees a few other permit holders who claim exemptions allowed in state law and county ordinance codes (i.e., veterans, those who are legally blind and non-profit organizations for temporary food events).
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. BOS Response: Partially disagree. Environmental Health is pursuing with County Counsel the option of charging fees.
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. BOS Response: Agree with clarification. The Board of Supervisors would need to approve an increase in revenue and expenditure authority and authorized positions in 7 addition to any fee increases. Competition for Environmental Health Specialists among the Bay Area counties is very keen and it is difficult to find available candidates.
F25:
The BOS approves the annual EHD budget, the inspection fee schedule, and associated policies for services provided by the division. BOS Response: Agree. B. The Contra Costa County Office of Education 26. The elected Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools (Superintendent) heads the Contra Costa County Office of Education (COE). OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the school districts in the county and the County Office’s involvement with the inspections of food service facilities and school site inspections.
F26:
The County has 39 labor contracts with 17 different employee organizations. Most of the contracts expire on September 30, 2008. Response: Agree.
F27:
The Superintendent has oversight responsibilities for 18 county public school districts, 260 public schools, approximately 8500 teachers, and approximately 165,000 students. OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the school districts in the county and the County Office’s involvement with the inspections of food service facilities and school site inspections.
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. OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the school districts in the county and the County Office’s involvement with the inspections of food service facilities and school site inspections.
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. OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the school districts in the county and the County Office’s involvement with the inspections of food service facilities and school site inspections.
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. OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the school districts in the county and the County Office’s involvement with the inspections of food service facilities and school site inspections.
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. OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the school districts in the county and the County Office’s involvement with the inspections of food service facilities and school site inspections.
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. OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the school districts in the county and the County Office’s involvement with the inspections of food service facilities and school site inspections.
Related Recommendations (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. BOS Response: The recommendation does not apply to Environmental Health. OE Response: The County Office requests to be copied on district school food safety reports in order to assist districts with compliance issues. The County Superintendent of 10 Schools will continue to collaborate with the County Health Services Department to ensure safe facilities for all students.
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. BOS Response: The recommendation has been implemented. Environmental Health is currently conferring with the County Office of Education to achieve better coordination and will continue to do so. OE Response: The County Office requests to be copied on district school food safety reports in order to assist districts with compliance issues. The County Superintendent of Schools will continue to collaborate with the County Health Services Department to ensure safe facilities for all students. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 0803 ATTENTION SPECIAL DISTRICTS! YOU TOO COULD FACE PENSION PLAN PROBLEMS Other Special Districts Could Learn From Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District’s Experience One or more Grand Jurors recused themselves due to a possible conflict of interest and did not participate in the preparation or approval of this report.
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. OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the school districts in the county and the County Office’s involvement with the inspections of food service facilities and school site inspections.
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. OE Response: The County Office agrees that these are factual statements regarding the school districts in the county and the County Office’s involvement with the inspections of food service facilities and school site inspections.
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
According to its mission statement, the primary objective of this facility is to rehabilitate, that is to “provide a safe, drug free program that helps youth meet their social and educational dreams. Its goal is to guide treatment that will help youth strengthen the community and build stronger families.” This Youth Center was not meant to be simply a detention facility that houses youth offenders. Financial
F2:
There were nine escapees from the facility during the calendar year 2008. According to the Sheriff’s Office, the average cost relating to capturing escapees is over $1500 per hour. The only fences on the property are intended to keep the animals from roaming. There are no security fences along the perimeter of the Youth Center to prevent youth offenders from simply walking away.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
With the goal of closing the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Center, conduct a feasibility study and develop an exit strategy. Both objectives shall be accomplished within 6 months. The feasibility study will determine how the Youth Center population can be integrated into the Martinez Juvenile Hall, and what cost savings would be realized.
F3:
The maximum capacity of the Youth Center is 100 youths. The new state-of-the-art Juvenile Hall in Martinez has the capacity, with alterations, to absorb all of the youths now housed at the Youth Center at a cost savings to the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
With the goal of closing the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Center, conduct a feasibility study and develop an exit strategy. Both objectives shall be accomplished within 6 months. The feasibility study will determine how the Youth Center population can be integrated into the Martinez Juvenile Hall, and what cost savings would be realized.
F4:
Based on its 2007-2008 Expenditure Ledger, the gross annual savings to the County resulting from the closure of the Youth Center would be about $6.2 million dollars. The Grand Jury estimates there will be variable cost increases that should not exceed $1.2 million dollars to house the reassigned youth in the Martinez Juvenile facility, leaving a projected net savings to the County of $5.0 million dollars. Facility and Grounds Kitchen:
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
With the goal of closing the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Center, conduct a feasibility study and develop an exit strategy. Both objectives shall be accomplished within 6 months. The feasibility study will determine how the Youth Center population can be integrated into the Martinez Juvenile Hall, and what cost savings would be realized.
F5:
After purportedly spending in excess of $500,000 two years ago on kitchen renovations and other improvements, grand jurors found that the majority of the deficiencies outlined in Grand Jury Report 0503 still exist. In addition, this grand jury found other deficiencies such as rusty steam table containers, a dirty sock on a rusty food scale, and other inadequacies. Steam table in kitchen Scales in kitchen with dirty sock
F6:
The only restroom in the cafeteria building has been out of service for several months. This restroom was used by both staff and youth offenders.
F7:
The staff could not provide evidence of training and/or medical clearance for youth workers in the kitchen. Main Dormitory:
F8:
Our inspection found worn out mattresses in the dormitory for older youth. Lumpy and cracked mattress
F9:
An air conditioning system was not in evidence in a building that frequently reaches temperatures in excess of 100 degrees.
F10:
The insect eradication program consists of fly strips hanging from the ceiling. A heavy infestation of insects, particularly flies, is due in large part to the close proximity of the living quarters to compost piles and animals. Manure and compost Fly strip Nurses Office:
F11:
A nurse is available Monday-Friday from 9:00am-5:00pm. Youths needing medical treatment are transported to the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez at all other times, including weekends, holidays, at night, or if there is a life-threatening emergency.
F12:
There were hypodermic needles in an unlocked cabinet and a dirty sink in the nurse’s office. Grounds:
F13:
The rehabilitation complex is on approximately 50 acres of land, most of which is not being utilized. The property is strewn with old cars, an abandoned challenge course, incomplete projects, abandoned computer equipment, broken tools, debris, and junk. Inoperative vehicles, hazardous equipment and clutter 1 Abandoned Challenge Course at the rear of the property Broken wheelbarrow Computers and other junk Debris between two storage containers
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Within 6 months, the County shall investigate all possible productive uses and revenue sources which might be realized from the closure of the Youth Center. Alternatively, the County shall consider the sale of the land and buildings. Required Responses:
F14:
Commercial metal shipping containers, now being used for storage, contain dangerous electrical wiring and open gasoline containers. Electrical connections in a storage container Open gasoline container
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Within 6 months, the County shall investigate all possible productive uses and revenue sources which might be realized from the closure of the Youth Center. Alternatively, the County shall consider the sale of the land and buildings. Required Responses:
F15:
A dilapidated barn with parts of the roof and sides missing is located in the center of the property. A large abandoned plastic tank is stored near the horse corral along with debris. Barn in Disrepair Unused tank and junk
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Within 6 months, the County shall investigate all possible productive uses and revenue sources which might be realized from the closure of the Youth Center. Alternatively, the County shall consider the sale of the land and buildings. Required Responses:
F16:
Abandoned electrical switch panels and water pumps, some of which may be hazardous, are present throughout the property. Abandoned electrical panel and water well near the barn Livestock:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Within 6 months, the County shall investigate all possible productive uses and revenue sources which might be realized from the closure of the Youth Center. Alternatively, the County shall consider the sale of the land and buildings. Required Responses:
F17:
The animals at the Youth Center include a horse, a few goats, chickens, and llamas. None of the animals appeared to have shelter from the sun, rain or cold. A horse coral is located on the upper left, goats on the lower left, One of three Llamas at the Youth Center and a few goats and Llamas in the pasture on the lower right. Youth Programs:
F18:
The Youth Center’s staff supplied the Grand Jury with their Residential Handbook and also with a draft of a Youth Guide. The Guide is intended to supersede the handbook. However, as of January 2009 this guide has not been approved by senior management.
F19:
The following treatment/program options are listed in the Residential Handbook: Family Counseling, Therapeutic Community, Restitution Service, Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous, Drug and Alcohol Assessment, Drug and Alcohol Counseling, Transition Program, Anger Management, Life Skills, Gang Diversion, Residential Commissary, Teen Parenting, Senior Tutors, Religious Guidance, Work Crew, Athletic League and Field Trips. Many of these treatment programs and services are inadequate or unavailable. Only court ordered programs are mandatory.
F20:
The Youth Center’s manual describes an Animal Husbandry Program. The Grand Jury could find no evidence of instructors, a formal curriculum, or any youth involved in such a program. Animal Husbandry, apparently once a viable program at the Youth Center, is no longer functioning. A bulletin board at the Youth Center touts an Animal Husbandry Program that no longer exists.
F21:
Delta Vista High School offers a program through which the youths can obtain their GED. This program is funded by the Contra Costa County Office of Education. CONCLUSIONS The Grand Jury is concerned that the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Center is not cost effective and is not accomplishing its primary mission of rehabilitation. An alternative exists which potentially would save the County millions. This waste of County resources is unacceptable when the current budget crisis is leading to elimination or cuts in other important County services. In addition to financial benefits that would be realized by closing the Youth Center, there will be no rehabilitation loss to the County’s youths since there is no evidence of any existing viable programs. Most of the programs offered in their Handbook are understaffed, unstaffed, or nonexistent. Little or no improvement has been noted since the previous Grand Jury Report 0503 criticized food services at the Orin Allen facility. Violations of numerous health codes, as found in the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law, still exist at the Youth Center. The Youth Center should be closed because the benefits it provides to the County and its youth are so marginal they cannot be justified.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
With the goal of closing the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Center, conduct a feasibility study and develop an exit strategy. Both objectives shall be accomplished within 6 months. The feasibility study will determine how the Youth Center population can be integrated into the Martinez Juvenile Hall, and what cost savings would be realized.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The Sheriff’s VSP is organized into the following groups: • The Sheriff’s Air Squadron provides air operation support services. The Air Squadron consists of pilots and observers who conduct personnel transportation, aerial cataloging, aerial surveillance, logistical support, and assistance to the Sheriff’s Air Support. The Air Squadron has 8 aircraft, 8 pilots and 7 observers. The pilots bring their privately owned aircraft to the VSP and some also pay for the aviation fuel used. Highlighting the fleet are a 6-passenger twin turbo propeller driven aircraft for long distance transport, and a high performance 5-6 seat helicopter. One volunteer has recently acquired a larger jet aircraft that requires two pilots and it may be added to the Sheriff’s VSP inventory in the near future. Should it be used, its deployment will be limited to major crisis or war. In the calendar year 2007, the Air Squadron members contributed 557 hours of service. The members range in age from 30 to 70 years. • The Sheriff’s Explorer Program is conducted under the auspices of the Boy Scouts of America. The Explorer Program provides members with experience and training in law enforcement. The Explorers participate in public events, provide traffic control, and serve in other ancillary functions. In 2007, the Explorers contributed 5,865 hours of service. The Explorers range in age from 14 to 21 years. • The Sheriff’s Dive Team provides underwater services. Members of the Dive Team are highly trained and certified divers. As requested, the Dive Team activities include body recovery, evidence searches, vehicle recovery and swift water rescue. In 2007, members of the Dive Team contributed 550 hours of service. The Dive Team members range in age from 40 to 70 years. • The Sheriff’s Medical Support Team consists of volunteers with specialized medical training who are prepared to respond during times of emergency or disaster. The Medical Support Team is also trained to deploy in support of the Mobile Field Force and the SWAT team during training or active deployment. This team also provides specialized medical training to the first responders of the Search and Rescue Team. Member retention is difficult for this team due to the monetary loss incurred by medical professionals who contribute time to train with the team. In 2007, members of the Medical Support Team contributed 250 hours of service. The three members of the team range in age from 30 to 50 years. • The Sheriff’s Food Service Unit provides meals to units during extended operations and supports overnight training missions of the other volunteer service units. Events include: SWAT operations, in line-of-duty deaths, search and rescue activations, and other Sheriff’s Department functions. In 2007, the Food Service Unit contributed 550 hours of service. The team members, who range in age from 30 to 60 years, are led by a Volunteer Food Service professional. Plans are in place to expand this unit. • The Sheriff’s Reserve Deputy Program provides support for all divisions within the department. Reserve Deputies operate and supplement the daily operations of the Field Services Unit by providing: transportation services, off-road vehicle support, and crime scene support. They assist in many search and rescue functions, and serve at hundreds of community events throughout the year providing operational support, traffic control and event security. Security for the Contra Costa County Fair is provided solely by the Reserve Deputy Program. In 2007, Reserve Deputy Program personnel contributed more than 22,000 hours of service. Its 65 members range in age from 21 to 75 years. • The Sheriff’s Search and Rescue Team is well known throughout the state for its search and rescue efforts. It is regularly called to assist throughout California, including Yosemite and other high risk situations. In addition to responding to routine missing person calls or lost child calls, the team is in a constant training mode. Currently the team is working toward Mountain Rescue Association accreditation and expects to receive it in early 2009. The team operates its own training academy for new members as well as for those who are preparing for advancement assignments. In 2007, the team contributed over 45,000 hours of service. The program’s 211 members range in age from 14 to 60 years. • The Sheriff’s Amateur Radio Communications Team (also known as ARC) primarily provides communication support to all department operations. Team members provide essential communications for events and operations, and ultimately support the Office of the Sheriff in times of disaster by providing an alternate means of communication when the normal systems are overloaded or destroyed. In addition they also support the Sheriff’s emergency mobile command center. In 2007, the team contributed over 2,000 hours of service. The 22 members of the team range in age from 40 to 60 years. • The Sheriff’s Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (also known as RACES) Team provides communications for all of the emergency operations centers within Contra Costa County. Members are all licensed amateur radio operators (also known as HAMS). During times of disaster the team establishes and supplements communication networks. In 2007, they contributed nearly 4,000 hours of service. The team has 124 members ranging in age from 35 to 70 years. • The Sheriff’s Chaplaincy Program provides spiritual guidance and counseling as needed to all members of law enforcement and the community. Chaplains participate in community events, ride along with deputies on patrol, and assist during times of crisis. In 2007, members contributed in excess of 3,500 hours of service. The 35 members of the team range in age from 40 to 70 years. • The Sheriff’s Auxiliary Volunteer Extended Services (SAVES) program provides assistance to all areas of the Office of the Sheriff. SAVES members can be found providing essential services to the Crime Lab, the Coroner, Field Operations Bureau, and Emergency Services Support Unit. In 2007, members contributed over 15,000 hours of service. The team’s 135 members range in age from 18 to 75 years.
F2:
There are about 500 individuals in the Sheriff’s 11 volunteer programs. Approximately fifteen percent are women. The services rendered by these volunteers are equivalent to about 50 full time paid positions yearly. If the County had to pay for the services provided by all of these volunteers it would cost in the vicinity of $5,000,000.
F3:
The 500 volunteers are supervised by two county employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The VSP would be more effective if more support staff were made available. Currently, two county employees are supervising 500 people. We recommend that the Sheriff identify the amount of funds necessary to support additional staff to enhance this valuable county resource.
F4:
All volunteers are extensively screened. This process includes a Department of Justice background check, a DMV report, and fingerprinting. Reserve Deputy Sheriffs must undergo the same physical, psychological and academic testing as regular Police Officers.
F5:
All volunteers are trained for emergency responses in their respective programs. The Search and Rescue Team members, for example, must successfully complete training on the Search and Rescue Mutual Aid-Ground Searcher Guidelines before they can be certified to become eligible to participate in search and rescue missions.
F6:
The Search and Rescue Team members pay for some of their own rescue gear, which can be costly. It is not unusual for team members to incur costs of $1000 to $2000 during their first year.
F7:
The county provides the first uniform for volunteers and also pays an annual uniform allowance of $150 - if there is adequate money in the budget.
F8:
The Reserve Deputy Program members provide services for events not normally budgeted by the County Sheriff’s Department. They are not paid for these services.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Other than for emergency services, the Sheriff should consider generating revenue from the services the volunteers perform. The Sheriff should consider whether event organizers should pay a nominal fee for volunteer services provided, including events such as athletic events, car shows, parades, and community events.
R3:
The Sheriff should consider whether all monies generated from the VSP, including funds from the contract with the County Fair, should be reinvested in the volunteer program.
F9:
Most volunteers maintain their volunteer status and do not apply to become a sworn Deputy Sheriff.
F10:
The longest tenured volunteer has 35 years of dedicated service and pictured below is the oldest volunteer in the program, a retired deputy sheriff sergeant who is 75 years old. CONCLUSION The Grand Jury is very impressed with all aspects of the VSP. The dedication displayed by these citizens is outstanding, and the professionalism of the officers in charge is exemplary.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
Section 925 of the California Penal Code requires that “The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of (Contra Costa) county ”
F2:
Section 919(c) of the California Penal Code requires “The grand jury shall inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description within (Contra Costa) county.”
F3:
Section 939.9 of the California Penal Code requires that “A grand jury shall make no report . . . on any matter except on the basis of its own investigation of the matter made by such grand jury.”
F4:
Section 827 (a) (1) (P) of the Welfare and Institutions code provides that a case file may be inspected by: “Any other person who may be designated by court order of the judge of the juvenile court upon filing a petition.”
F5:
The Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau of the Employment & Human Services Department of Contra Costa County is subject to the oversight responsibilities of the Contra Costa County Grand Jury.
F6:
There have been numerous newspaper articles and anecdotal stories state-wide about foster children being placed in unsafe or abusive homes, not attending school and not receiving appropriate medical treatment. There have also been reported incidents during which a lack of oversight resulted in death.
F7:
Interviews by the Grand Jury suggest that the rapid turnover of assigned caseworkers and recent budget reductions are detrimental to the welfare of the foster children.
F8:
CFS establishes a case file for each foster child. CFS maintains that they have detailed records covering such things as the cleanliness of the living facilities, school attendance, indications of domestic violence, substance abuse and all medical records. CFS has taken the position that these files may not be reviewed in their entirety by the Grand Jury.
F9:
The Grand Jury spent many months attempting to gain full access to a random selection of case files. This effort began in September, 2008 and has continued to the present. These efforts included numerous meetings, electronic correspondence, and telephone conversations with CFS senior personnel as well as attendance at court hearings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department.
F10:
The Grand Jury has repeatedly requested that CFS provide access to review a random selection of complete current case files. This review would be conducted by a select group of Grand Jurors in a secure CFS location. Each request has been denied or indefinitely postponed. CFS contends that significant portions of the files be redacted before they can be reviewed by Grand Jurors. The redaction included all parties’ names (including children, parents and mandated reporters) and addresses, excluding the names of towns. The first names of the children did not have to be redacted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department.
F11:
As a result of a Superior Court hearing dated January 21, 2009, and based on of Welfare and Institution Code 827, CFS agreed to provide Grand Jury access to requested case files, but due to the lengthy redaction process imposed by CFS, the Grand Jury has been unable to review any complete files.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department.
F12:
Over 200 Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) have immediate and direct access to the complete current un-redacted case files of County foster children to which they are assigned. Conversely, the Grand Jury, in its legally authorized oversight role has consistently been denied access to complete case files.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department.
F13:
The oversight provided by federal and state authorities appears to involve comparing reported CFS statistical information with similar statistical information from other foster care agencies. No review or oversight is apparent from any non-agency personnel inspecting actual current and complete case files. (Note: No peer review documentation, though requested, has been made available.) CONCLUSION It is the Grand Jury’s understanding that CFS has not previously been asked or directed to make its foster care case files available for inspection and review by an outside, independent entity. It has become evident that CFS believes it should not be subject to any Grand Jury oversight. Specifically, CFS has required substantial alterations be made to any case file requested for review. The outcome of the CFS policy is to delay and deny the Grand Jury the ability to review complete un-redacted case files in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F1:
Contra Costa County has labor agreements with unions covering as many as 13,000 employees.
F2:
Salaries and benefits account for 56.1% of the County’s 2008-2009 budget.
F3:
Union agreements, covering approximately 7200 employees, are currently the subject of collective bargaining.
F4:
Contra Costa County has no clearly defined or documented strategy for its 2008-2009 labor negotiations. A senior negotiator stated that the county position is “to react once we receive proposals from the unions.”
F5:
The Interim Manager of Human Resources has made a significant effort to expand the 2008-2009 County Negotiating Team.
F6:
Fifteen Union Agreements expired simultaneously in September 2008 and have been extended through January 2009.
F7:
Negotiations began on October 16, 2008. The County proposed and obtained the unions’ agreement for a set of ground rules for conducting the negotiations. This set of ground rules is not available to the Grand Jury, due to the County’s interpretation of the Meyers- Milias-Brown Act.
F8:
Training for the County Negotiating Team didn’t begin until September 2008.
F9:
The County Negotiating Team has had multiple personnel losses over the past two years. Two County Administrators have left since 2006 followed by recent resignations of the Labor Relations Manager, the Employees Benefits Manager and the Human Resources Director, three top negotiators in the Human Resources Department.
F10:
A Total Compensation Study commissioned by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) is scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2008. Reportedly, partial information is now available and will continue to be throughout the negotiations.
F11:
The 2008-2009 County Negotiating Team is utilizing a Principal Labor Relations Negotiator as its internal fact-finder for proposals from both sides
F12:
Industrial Employers and Distributors, Inc. (IEDA) has represented the County as the lead external County Labor Negotiator for the past 35 years. IEDA will act in this capacity for the 2008-2009 negotiations.
F13:
The County Finance Director is not a member of the County Negotiating Team but will provide cost projections and detailed costs analysis information upon request to both management and the unions.
F14:
The negotiated terms for the labor agreements will be reviewed by the County Counsel, the Auditor, and the Finance Director prior to going before the BOS for final approval.
F15:
Working documents and negotiating details from prior negotiations are maintained by IEDA.
F16:
Members of the BOS continue to discuss negotiating issues with union representatives during and outside of the formal negotiations process.
F17:
The County Administrator’s office reports that the unfunded County OPEB obligation is $1.7 Billion.
F18:
It is widely acknowledged that dealing with the unfunded County OPEB liability is the highest priority for labor negotiations.
F19:
Even paying a token amount toward funding the OPEB obligation means that numerous County services, valued at about $10 million for the current fiscal year, will be reduced.
F20:
The County has historically had significant in-house financial expertise, including departments led by the Treasurer and Auditor-Controller, which has not been fully utilized in support of negotiations.
F21:
In a step that continues to deplete County reserves, the BOS also authorized, in a separate transaction, the County Auditor-Controller to transfer $10 million from reserves to the County’s general fund for current operating expenses.
F22:
The labor agreements include obsolete language and practices. CONCLUSIONS: The Grand Jury is extremely concerned by the County's approach to the current labor negotiations. The Grand Jury views favorably the efforts of the Interim Director of Human Resources: to better train the negotiations team, to utilize one individual as a fact checker for both sides, and to implement negotiations ground rules. These are positive first steps and should be made a permanent component of future negotiations. Conversely, prior Grand Juries have repeatedly expressed disappointment at the County's overall lack of planning and preparation, as well as the BOS's stated willingness to directly involve themselves in the negotiations. This disjointed approach is the same business-as-usual strategy that has resulted in the current level of unsustainable wages and benefits and the County's well-publicized OPEB problems. The County is currently confronting an economic tsunami: the meltdown of the securities markets, the highest foreclosure rates since the Depression, the attendant decline in property taxes, the recognition of the need to fund OPEB liabilities, and the State Budget crisis. These factors make it impossible to continue to provide the existing levels of salaries and benefits to current and retired employees without ongoing cuts in County public services. Real cuts in salaries and benefits have to be made now. This is a harsh reality. The County can no longer delay action on these issues. It needs to address them now and to do so in a carefully planned manner with supporting strategies and tactics. The Grand Jury believes that, at a minimum, the BOS must put politics-as-usual aside and bargain with its unions in a tough, well planned, and strategic manner. Specific steps for this approach are described in this report's recommendations. The Grand Jury realizes that the implementation of these recommendations represents a distinct departure from past negotiations. It well may result in resistance from represented unions. However these are not ordinary times and the County's economic future cannot be guided by its past compliant negotiations approach. Strong leadership is needed from the BOS. This requires courage and a willingness to confront harsh realities. Anything less will result in an economic catastrophe and will be to the long-term detriment of the entire County, its citizens, programs, and employees.
Findings & Recommendations
28 findings
F1:
Bethel Island had 15 to 35 active volunteer fire fighters who were paid on-call.
F2:
It became increasingly difficult to use volunteers because of changing standards and fire fighting techniques.
F3:
Prior to the formation of ECCFPD, fire fighting equipment consisted of two fire engines for fighting structural fires, two designated for grass and brush fires, two fire boats (converted recreational vessels), at least one water tender, and a rescue unit.
F4:
The Volunteer Fire Department was composed of residents of Bethel Island who were knowledgeable regarding the unusual pattern of roads, street names, and points of access.
F5:
In the 1970s, salaried staff consisted of a Fire Chief, an Assistant Chief, and a communications technician. In 1993-94 the Assistant Chief position was eliminated.
F6:
The salaried full time personnel were basically day time with a variable number of volunteers available after hours and weekends. Usually, some personnel were on site 24 hours per day 7 days per week.
F7:
Just prior to the formation of the ECCFPD, it became difficult to maintain an acceptable level of service. Fire Department Staffing, Facilities, and Equipment After the Formation of ECCFPD.
F8:
The ECCFPD was formed in September of 2002. The new District was a consolidation of three dependent Districts in the eastern part of Contra Costa County, Bethel Island, East Diablo and Oakley. The consolidation resulted in nine fire stations within seven communities1, including Bethel Island and other unincorporated areas.
F9:
The BOS application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the consolidation of East County fire departments to form the ECCFPD contained the following: “It is the intention of the Board of Supervisors to unify the three districts into a single district that will provide seamless service in a way that will enhance the emergency response network within projected revenues. It is also intended to coordinate future efforts to develop funding and fire protection service levels to equal status with the remainder of Bay Area communities.” 1 Bethel Island, Oakley, Knightsen, Brentwood, Byron, Discovery Bay, and Marsh Creek-Morgan Territory area
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Establish an oversight commission, as was done during the formation of the ECCFPD. The commission could assist in managing funding issues, determine future resources (equipment, personnel or fire stations), determine areas of risk, recommend the establishment of response time goals, improve local control, and reduce perceived inequities as they pertain to Fire District decisions.
F10:
According to ECCFPD, fire fighting procedures for Bethel Island are as follows: At the first alarm, one engine and two firefighters will be dispatched to the fire. Simultaneously, a fire engine will be sent to cover the Bethel Island station from a nearby community. If necessary, reserve fire fighters can be called to provide additional support.
F11:
Following the formation of ECCFPD, fire fighting equipment and resources no longer available on Bethel Island are: • two fire engines for grass and brush fires, • two fire boats that were converted from recreational vessels, • one water tender, • the volunteer fire fighters. The current complement of equipment and resources located at Bethel Island are two fire engines and two fire fighters and a contracted rescue unit.
F12:
ECCFPD recently acquired a state-of-the-art fire boat, which uses a two to three-person crew. This boat is on call for all of Contra Costa County and surrounding waterways. Therefore, it may or may not be available at any given time because of its coverage area. If the boat is required to fight a fire, firefighters from one of the responding fire engines could board the boat at the scene to achieve the needed crew size. A recently acquired state-of-the-art fire boat for use in Contra Costa County
F13:
The ECCFPD has stated that fire trucks have a shorter response time than a boat. For that reason the fire boat is not the primary piece of fire fighting equipment.
F14:
Currently, Bethel Island fire station is staffed with six firefighters (2 per shift). Four are relatively long term. The remaining two firefighters are rotated in from elsewhere in the District.
F15:
ECCFPD has contracted with American Medical Response (AMR) to provide three paramedics who are shared throughout the District. One paramedic is stationed at Bethel Island.
F16:
The system required to keep the water flowing to the business district hydrants failed in 2006 and has not been repaired or replaced. The pipes are old and in questionable condition. This pumping system, if operational, would provide water to service the business district. In addition to the 1,250 gallons of water available on the fire trucks, and local private working pumps, water to fight fires is brought in by tanker trucks or drafted (pumped) from the Delta. The Grand Jury was unable to determine the ownership of the pump and hydrants. Pump Abandoned Pump Intended for Fire Protection of Bethel Island’s Business District Abandoned switch meter box for pump, and an unused corroded fire hydrant in the business district
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That ECCFPD develop a cost comparison of various options to provide additional water supply for fire use on Bethel Island. Suggestions include but are not limited to: • strategic placement of water tanks, and/or • provide a method to move Delta water to the land side.
F17:
Water Tenders (Water Trucks) brought from off of the island must be used to replace the inoperable water hydrants. The water supply is limited.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That ECCFPD develop a cost comparison of various options to provide additional water supply for fire use on Bethel Island. Suggestions include but are not limited to: • strategic placement of water tanks, and/or • provide a method to move Delta water to the land side.
F18:
There are private wells and water systems on Bethel Island, but with few exceptions they do not provide water for fire protection.
F19:
Prior to the formation of ECCFPD in 2002, there were approximately 450 calls per year on Bethel Island with an average response time of slightly more than 6 minutes.
F20:
After the consolidation, the actual response time was recorded at approximately 10 minutes. A 2006 report by Citygate Associates showed that ECCFPD response times should be 5 minutes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That ECCFPD complete a risk assessment of all areas of the District and establish an acceptable level of risk for each area to include response-time goals established for each area. Measurements shall be taken and compared to goals. The District shall develop objectives based on existing available resources.
F21:
Between November 1, 2007 and November 30, 2008, Fire District logs indicate average response times for fires were more than 8 minutes. The Fire House photographed in the 1940s and in February 2009. This fire house has been condemned and will be replaced in the near future. The two trucks currently assigned to Bethel Island have water capacities of 500 and 750 gallons of water. If needed, additional water must be brought in by tanker trucks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That ECCFPD complete a risk assessment of all areas of the District and establish an acceptable level of risk for each area to include response-time goals established for each area. Measurements shall be taken and compared to goals. The District shall develop objectives based on existing available resources.
F22:
The fire station is uninhabitable due to the presence of mold. This requires the leasing of temporary facilities for the housing of personnel. Only firefighting equipment is permitted in the existing building. When permits are issued, it will be demolished.
F23:
ECCFPD firefighter’s wages and benefits are the lowest in Contra Costa County.
F24:
The District provides no formal training of personnel regarding the confusing street patterns, names, and terrain of Bethel Island.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That ECCFPD provide formal orientation training specific to Bethel Island for all District fire fighters.
F25:
The ECCFPD provides no formalized performance evaluations or objectives related to all fire fighting personnel.
F26:
Delta Coves has most of its infrastructure requirements completed. Economic issues have delayed the development of the project indefinitely. Although fire hydrants are in place, a source of water will have to be acquired prior to any construction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
That the BOS work in cooperation with the Fire District to ensure that the objectives of ECCFPD are part of the decision making process as the Bethel Island Delta Coves project progresses. Required Responses:
F27:
The ECCFPD Fire Chief reports to the BOS and the County Administrator.
F28:
The ECCFPD encompasses portions of Supervisorial Districts Three and Five.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
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.
Related Recommendations (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.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
24 findings
F1:
According to the US Census, almost 11% of the thirty-six million residents in California are 65 or older. Its most recent estimate is that Contra Costa County residents over age 65 constitute 11.5 % of the County’s population, or about 118,000 individuals.
F2:
The fastest growing segment of the population in Contra Costa County is the 85+ age group. Over the next ten years, this group is predicted to skyrocket by 55%. The 65+ age group is expected to increase 37%.
F3:
During the fiscal years 2006-2008, more than 3500 reports of elder abuse in all forms, were reported to Contra Costa County’s Adult Protective Services, a division of Contra Costa County Health and Human Services. Of the reports made in 2006-2007, 486 dealt with elder financial abuse. The number increased to 528 in 2007-2008, an increase of 9.2%.
F4:
The legislature recognizes that elders and dependent adults may be subjected to abuse, neglect, or abandonment, and that this state has a responsibility to protect these persons.
F5:
Contra Costa County elderly residents, who lack financial, physical or mental health support, have little or no protective options provided by their local government.
F6:
The State mandates that Contra Costa County provide financial protective services to its most fragile citizens under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protective Act.
F7:
Paid or unpaid individuals responsible for caring for elderly adults are mandated to report elder abuse. These mandated reporters include but are not limited to administrators, supervisors and licensed staff providing care and services to the elderly, APS employees, health practitioners (such as physicians and nurses), police officers, clergy members, employees of financial institutions, and elder or dependent adult care custodians. Care custodians include, for example, home health agency administrators and staff, and fire department members.
F8:
If a mandated reporter fails to report to an appropriate government agency, incidents of known or suspected abuse, he or she may incur a civil penalty in an action by the Attorney General, District Attorney or County Counsel.
F9:
SB 1018 (The Financial Abuse Reporting Act of 2005), effective on January 1, 2007, requires Contra Costa County’s APS agency to provide mandated reporters of suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependant adult with instructional materials. These materials define elder and dependent adult abuse and neglect, and also describes mandated reporters’ obligation to report such abuse.
F10:
About 25% of elder abuse cases are referred to law enforcement for possible criminal investigation.
F11:
Perpetrators of elder abuse include spouses and adult children, grandchildren, other relatives, caregivers, parents, siblings, service providers or caregivers, unknown persons or friends, and others. Unknown Others, 9% Service Persons or Providers Friends, 1% Spouses, 3% 15% Siblings, 6% Parents, 6% Caregivers, 3% Adult Children Other Relatives, 8% Grand 40% children 9%
F12:
Recognized experts estimate that only one in five cases of elder abuse in California is reported.
F13:
Adult Protective Services lost the following staff as of January 1, 2009; one Public Health Nurse, one Mental Health Clinical Specialist, nine Social Workers, and two Social Work Supervisors.
F14:
Due to staff reductions, APS will no longer be able to provide case management services for the elderly victims of abuse and neglect in Contra Costa County.
F15:
The protective net that APS has provided to the elderly will be reduced to referral of cases to police departments, hospitals, mental health and the public guardian’s office.
F16:
Outreach to the community regarding elder abuse and neglect, mandatory reporting, and elder financial abuse will no longer be provided due to APS staff reductions.
F17:
The Contra Costa County Conservatorship/Guardianship (C/G) Program (which is within the Mental Health Division of the Department of Health Services), deals with elderly persons with and without dementia and dependent adults who need assistance in managing their financial affairs. Current referrals come primarily from APS, local hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, the courts, friends and family members.
F18:
California law (Probate Code Section 2920) specifies that, if a court order is issued requiring a conservator be appointed, and no one else is available, a Public Guardian shall be appointed.
F19:
Each case accepted by the C/G program requires consultation with, and the support of, legal counsel. Within the County Counsel’s Department there is no designated attorney to serve the C/G Program.
F20:
Ongoing probate conservatorship services to qualifying elderly persons, including money management services, are provided only as a last resort and only if a private or personal alternative is not available.
F21:
Elderly persons without sufficient financial resources are not eligible for assistance from the existing C/G Program and ultimately get lost in the system.
F22:
The C/G Program currently manages with 20 staff members the funds (estates) of over 500 people who need money management and conservatorship services.
F23:
Of the 20 staff members, there are four designated probate conservators in the C/G Program to serve elderly people needing probate conservatorship services.
F24:
Due to the lack of designated staff, the legal needs of the C/G Program are not being met. CONCLUSIONS: The Grand Jury recognizes that the County has very difficult decisions to make with respect to the use of its diminishing resources. The State has the power to mandate that the County provide services to some of its most vulnerable citizens; however, this does not appear to be adequately enforced. The question raised by the Grand Jury is how the obligation imposed by the State to offer services to the elderly is reconciled with the inability of the County to provide those services. The question then arises, should the State be requested to provide a waiver to the County that would allow it to cease serving its elderly population? Or should the County restructure its priorities to allocate sufficient resources so as to allow it to comply with the State’s mandate? Currently, Contra Costa County elderly residents who lack financial, physical or mental health support have little or no protective options provided by their local government. Under current conditions, vulnerable elderly persons suffering financial abuse may not receive the services to which they are entitled by law.