Contra Costa County Grand Jury
2010-2011
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Orin Allen is a cost-effective alternative to the Juvenile Hall facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Orin Allen should remain open to provide programs for non-violent youth offenders.
F2:
There is no formal training in construction, food preparation or horticulture.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Probation and Office of Education should explore adding vocational classes to supplement classroom education with the assistance of General Services.
F3:
Residents do not routinely perform minor facility maintenance and repairs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Office of Education should consider incorporating minor repair and maintenance projects into the current woodshop curriculum to supplement classroom instruction.
F4:
There are no regularly scheduled collaborative planning sessions between the County Probation Department and Office of Education leadership concerning the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Probation and Office of Education leaders should establish collaborative planning sessions concerning rehabilitation programs at Orin Allen.
F5:
Management personnel at the Office of Education have varying levels of knowledge about the execution of their educational programs currently offered at Orin Allen.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Office of Education should identify a management person to be the Orin Allen site expert.
F6:
The Rossmoor Senior Tutors provide a valuable service to the residents of the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should publicly recognize the Rossmoor Senior Tutors for their long and dedicated service to Orin Allen.
F7:
Community volunteers provide additional enrichment opportunities for Orin Allen residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Board of Supervisors should assign a liaison to solicit community volunteers to provide enrichment programs for the Orin Allen residents.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Grants are not always essential in creating successful collaborations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County Administrator and department heads to identify, and when appropriate create additional collaborative opportunities between County departments and between the County and other public agencies that will maximize resources, eliminate duplication and overlap, and improve outcomes.
F2:
Collaborations might be an effective means to utilize limited resources and enhance outcomes, and can be used in a variety of situations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should consider including in each department head’s annual performance plan an element that requires each of them to identify and report on possible collaborative efforts.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
A challenge facing the City after the June election is that there will be at least three council members with less than six months’ experience.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Council should obtain training regarding the role of a city council and how members successfully interact with one another, the City staff and residents.
F2:
As evidenced in the report a lack of transparency and openness such as not having public comment at the beginning of Council meetings, impeded residents’ input, contributed to the political turmoil and stifled the development of policies, priorities and goals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Steps should be taken to solicit residents’ participation on major issues, policies and procedures.
F3:
The lack of clearly defined goals and responsibilities for the City Manager and City Attorney hindered the Council’s ability to hold them accountable for their performances.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Upon selection of a new City Manager and City Attorney, the Council should provide a clear definition of responsibilities, performance goals and the reporting relationship between these positions and the Council.
F4:
The flow of information provided to the Council about city operations was managed by the City Manager, limiting the Council’s decision-making abilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Council should require the City Manager to develop a reporting structure that ensures the Council has information and insight regarding City operations.
F5:
Existing conflict of interest, contract bidding and nepotism policies were not comprehensive enough, which resulted in abuses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Council should review existing conflict of interest, contract bidding and nepotism policies and adopt provisions to address any weaknesses.
F6:
The lack of rotating subcommittee assignments limited the opportunity for checks and balances. Additionally, subcommittee meeting minutes were not taken and thus not available for review.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Council, in conjunction with the new City Manager, should obtain residents’ input when developing policies, goals, and priorities for the City.
F7:
Not changing the City’s financial audit firm periodically may have contributed to the financial crisis facing the City.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Council should establish a policy to assure the financial audit firm is changed at least every five years.
F8:
Failure to fill key City management vacancies promptly may negatively impact the City’s ability to operate effectively.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Council should fill vacant key City management positions expeditiously.
F9:
Total compensation provided to Council members is above the average for Contra Costa County cities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Council should review compensation for Council members and take appropriate actions.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The District has made a few small grants totaling $243,823, amounting to less than 10 percent of the total revenues collected from property taxes and contributions, while accumulating a fund balance in excess of $800,000 which is available for health related programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board should promptly develop a plan to allocate funds to health programs for District residents.
F2:
Over 10 percent of the District’s annual income is expended for health care insurance for one current Board member and one former Board member and their spouses. This payment may be a lifetime District obligation to these individuals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board should promptly review the current health insurance coverage for qualified current or former Board members to assure compliance with District policy. Health insurance premiums should be approved by the Board. a. If the recipients are eligible for Medicare, the Board should require enrollment in Medicare making it the primary provider. If District policy provides for supplemental coverage, the Board should undertake a competitive bid process for such coverage. b. If recipients are not Medicare eligible, the Board should initiate competitive bidding for the primary insurance.
F3:
The District has outlived its useful purpose and is no longer needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Mt. Diablo Health Care District should initiate dissolution proceedings promptly.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
In 2008·2009, there were approximately 1,100 foster care children served by CPS. Response: Respondent agrees with finding 2. In 2008·2009, 179 of the foster care children in CFS were being served by 157 trained CASA volunteers. Response: Respondent agrees with finding 3. Approximately 50 children are on a waiting list for a CASA volunteer assignment. Response: Respondent agrees with finding 4. In 2008-2009, of the 119 positions eliminated in CFS, 65 were social worker responsible for foster children. Response: Respondent agrees with finding 5. In the same year, CASA volunteers provided 20,477 case hours of advocacy services to foster care children of Contra Costa County. Response: Respondent agrees with finding 6. At least forty-six (46) new CASA volunteers must be recruited, selected and trained each year to maintain the current level of volunteer services. Response: Respondent is not aware of the CASA requirements and is unable to agree or disagree with findings.
F2:
In 2008·2009, 179 of the foster care children in CFS were being served by 157 trained CASA volunteers. Response: Respondent agrees with
F3:
Approximately 50 children are on a waiting list for a CASA volunteer assignment. Response: Respondent agrees with
F4:
In 2008-2009, of the 119 positions eliminated in CFS, 65 were social worker responsible for foster children. Response: Respondent agrees with
F5:
In the same year, CASA volunteers provided 20,477 case hours of advocacy services to foster care children of Contra Costa County. Response: Respondent agrees with
F6:
At least forty-six (46) new CASA volunteers must be recruited, selected and trained each year to maintain the current level of volunteer services. Response: Respondent is not aware of the CASA requirements and is unable to agree or disagree with findings. 7. The Fall 2009 CASA training cycle was eliminated due to budgetary constraints. Response: Respondent is not aware of the CASA training schedule and is unable to agree or disagree with findings. 8. In 2008-2009, approximately 70% of foster children in CPS assigned to a CASA volunteer were Latino or children of color. Response: Respondent agrees with
F7:
The Fall 2009 CASA training cycle was eliminated due to budgetary constraints. Response: Respondent is not aware of the CASA training schedule and is unable to agree or disagree with findings.
F8:
In 2008-2009, approximately 70% of foster children in CPS assigned to a CASA volunteer were Latino or children of color. Response: Respondent agrees with finding 9. Representatives of CPS and CASA staff expressed the need for more ethnically diverse volunteers since 80% of CASA volunteers are Caucasian. Response: Respondent is unable to agree or disagree with finding in that the respondent is not aware of what representatives have said. The respondent would say that CASA Volunteers should be ethnically and culturally diverse and reflect the population that they serve.
F9:
Representatives of CPS and CASA staff expressed the need for more ethnically Contra Costa County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report No. 1101 Grand Jury reports are posted at http:///www-cc-courts.org/grandjury diverse volunteers since 80% of CASA volunteers are Caucasian. Response: Respondent is unable to agree or disagree with finding in that the respondent is not aware of what representatives have said. The respondent would say that CASA Volunteers should be ethnically and culturally diverse and reflect the population that they serve. 10. Of the foster care children served by CASA, 55% are from East and West County while only 16% of CASA volunteers were from East and West County. Response: Respondent is not aware of the parts of the county were CASA volunteers reside and is unable to agree or disagree with findings. 11. Representatives of CFS and CASA suggested that team effectiveness can be improved by addressing the differences in understanding or appreciation of their respective roles and responsibilities. Response: Respondent agrees with finding. Most working relationships are enhanced when representatives’ of different agencies have enhanced understanding of the role of their partners. The CASA program, CFS and other legal representatives meet on a bi-monthly basis. CFS staff volunteer their time to provide training to CASA staff when resources allow. Additionally CFS encourages their social workers to meet with CASA representatives regarding the children they represent. 12. CPS can be instrumental in supporting additional training of CASA volunteers in the areas of juvenile court procedures, dependency law and standards of care. Response: Respondent agrees with finding. There are many parties in the juvenile dependency arena. In addition to CFS, the Bench and Bench Officers are critical towards helping CASA staff in training.
F10:
Of the foster care children served by CASA, 55% are from East and West County while only 16% of CASA volunteers were from East and West County. Response: Respondent is not aware of the parts of the county were CASA volunteers reside and is unable to agree or disagree with findings.
F11:
Representatives of CFS and CASA suggested that team effectiveness can be improved by addressing the differences in understanding or appreciation of their respective roles and responsibilities. Response: Respondent agrees with finding. Most working relationships are enhanced when representatives’ of different agencies have enhanced understanding of the role of their partners. The CASA program, CFS and other legal representatives meet on a bi-monthly basis. CFS staff volunteer their time to provide training to CASA staff when resources allow. Additionally CFS encourages their social workers to meet with CASA representatives regarding the children they represent.
F12:
CPS can be instrumental in supporting additional training of CASA volunteers in the areas of juvenile court procedures, dependency law and standards of care. Response: Respondent agrees with finding. There are many parties in the juvenile dependency arena. In addition to CFS, the Bench and Bench Officers are critical towards helping CASA staff in training.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
West County Detention Facility has an inoperable Central Communications Intercom System. Response: Partially disagrees. At the time of inspection the Central Communications Intercom System was outdated and inoperable. At the time of this report, the Central Communications Intercom System had been replaced and was fully functional. Recommendation: The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department shall repair or replace the system. Response: The central communications system was replaced. West County Detention facility currently has an upgraded, modern functioning central communications intercom system.
R2:
Marsh Creek Detention Facility has vocational programs to assist detainees with resocialization and transition upon release to productive community living. Response: Agrees
R3:
Chris Adams Girls’ Center was permanently closed effective September 30, 2009. Response: Agrees Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors shall direct a study to determine how female juvenile offenders in need of intensive therapeutic treatment can be served. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. In response to the closure of the Chris Adams Girls’ Center, the Probation Department re- allocated its resources to provide intensive rehabilitative treatment to girls who are committed to Juvenile Hall. Conceptualized in November 2009, the Girls’ In Motion Program accepted its first girls in January 2010. Probation staff has received intensive gender-specific training, enabling it to provide programming including Girl’s Circle, Aggression Replacement Training, and Life Skills to girls, and collaborates with community partners to provide trauma-based treatment groups. Probation is also seeking grant funding to increase mental health support services to girls in the program. In addition, girls who are ordered into placement that do not require the structure of a secure program are placed in out-of-county residential homes.
R4:
Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Center demonstrated improvement from findings in last year’s Grand Jury Inspection Report Number 0905. However, CSA standards related to hygiene were not met. Showers and drains are in need of deep cleaning, mold removal and leak repair. Response: Disagrees. The facility has always met CSA standards. Mold has never been detected in any area of the facility. Due to the high volume of use, showers and drains in both dormitories are deep-cleaned on a regular basis and any leaks are immediately corrected by the County’s General Services Department. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors shall direct that appropriate cleaning and repairs are implemented. Response: The recommendation has been implemented.
R5:
Finding: Richmond Police Department had an overflowing biohazard container. Response: Agrees Recommendation: The Richmond Police Department shall train responsible personnel in proper handling of biohazard material. Response: Richmond Police Department contracts with County Health services and expects that all contents will be removed or container replaced with a fresh one on each visit. Also the Department has invested in newer and larger bio hazard containers to better serve the officers and technicians. The new containers have been wall mounted and are very easy to lift to replace; the smaller units sat on desk tops.
R6:
Martinez Detention Facility, West County Detention Facility and Marsh Creek Detention Facilities provide meals that meet nutritional requirements for only $3.30 a day per inmate. Response: Agrees Recommendation: None
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Pension benefits, as currently structured, are ultimately unsustainable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In order to bring about change, the Board should work with its union partners during the current contract negotiations for concessions to offset rising pension costs.
F2:
Continued increases in pension cost may result in further reduction of public services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board should prioritize its focus on benefit changes that have an immediate financial impact, while pursuing legislative relief where necessary, to accomplish further reductions. (See table on )
F3:
The Board has taken some actions to reduce pension costs but more must be done to achieve sustainability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Those changes that can be made unilaterally by the Board for new employees should be adopted. (See table on )
F4:
Under the California Employer Retirement Law, the Board, without union agreement, could unilaterally adopt lower pension tiers and/or three-year averaging for final compensation for new employees. Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 • • • •
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board should require employees to contribute more to their retirement costs.
F5:
The Board could achieve lower pension benefits and costs, if successfully negotiated with the union, by reducing salaries and other pay items that currently increase final average compensation. Some pay items, such as uniform pay, could be eliminated and excluded from final average compensation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
County leadership should work expeditiously to eliminate the 'pick-up' portion of the employees' contributions to the retirement plan, saving up to $18 million a year.
F6:
While the financial impact of many pension changes will not be recognized in the short-term, the County—with Union agreement—could immediately reduce costs by approximately $18 million a year by eliminating its 'pick-up' portion of the employee's contribution to the retirement plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board should seek special legislation to enable the County to cap retirement income so that no employee receives a pension greater than the base salary earned.
F7:
It is possible for retirees to receive more in pension benefits than the combined base salary those retirees earned while employed at the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Given the complexity of pension reform issues, the number of legislative changes being proposed and ongoing labor negotiations, the Board should keep the public informed of what is being proposed and the Board's positions on these issues. Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 . . . . .
F8:
Taxpayers are ultimately responsible for covering the shortfall between the cost of pensions and the amount accumulated from employee/employer contributions and pension fund investment income.
F9:
Some of the possible changes require State legislation, as noted in the table on .
F10:
Pension reform is complex due to the differing legal opinions on what can be done, who can make it happen and when it can be done. This has led to public interest.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R20-25:
25-30 30 + $4,769 2002-General $2,187 $2,508 2009-General $3,167 $4,114 $6,823 $6,525 2002-Safety $5,301 $8,309 $9,587 2009-Safety $6,838 $10,802 • To clarify the table above, a 50 year old safety officer who retired in 2002 with 26 years of service would receive $78,300 a year, or over $2.3 million over the next 30 years, whereas a safety officer of the same age and years of service retiring in 2009 would receive $129,624 a year or $3.9 million over the next 30 years. Include a 3% COLA (which is currently the maximum annual COLA for County safety employees hired before January 2007) and the benefit grows to over $3.7 million and $6.2 million respectively. The following table extracts information from the actuary's example above for retirees with between 25-30 years of service and assumes a 30 year payout, with an annual 3% COLA. It illustrates the approximate 30 year benefit of a General or Safety employee who retired in 2002 versus 2009. Individual Benefit Years of Service 25-30 Example Approx. Approximate Lifetime Lifetime Benefit with Annual 3% COLA Benefit Benefit 2002-General $30,096 $902,880 $1,431,925 2009-General $2,348,703 $49,368 $1,481,040 $2,349,000 $3,725,155 2002-Safety $78,300 $129,624 $3,888,720 $6,166,916 2009-Safety The unfunded liability is what the actuary determines as the cost to cover shortfalls from market losses, demographic changes, overly-optimistic investment returns by the pension plan administrator or other benefit improvements that were not covered by the contribution rates collected from the employee and employer. From 2008 to 2009 the unfunded liability increased from $690 million to $1.025 billion, or a 49% increase. This was due primarily to an investment return that fell short of the assumed 7.8% rate. Employees do not share any of the unfunded liability burden. It is only recovered through additional charges to the employer. In other words, if the investment return doesn't meet its objective, the employer/taxpayers will bear ultimate responsibility for the financial shortfall. Employer contributions, funded with tax dollars, are scheduled to increase again on July 1, 2011. Pension costs for the County have almost tripled since 1998 and are projected to continue to increase through FY 2015-16. In January 2011, the County projected the retirement expenses for FY 2010-11 to jump to $202 million from $193 million in FY 2009-10. It also projected that even greater County contributions will be required in each of the future five years. By FY 2015-16, the pension bill is estimated at $279 million, or an increase of $86 million (45%) over the actual expenses in FY 2009-10. While revenues have also increased since FY 1999-00, they have not kept pace with the growing allocation needed for pension costs. The following graph indicates the percentage of gross revenue that is required for General Fund retirement expenses has more than doubled in the past ten years. Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 Retirement Expense as % of CCC Gross Revenue 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% Percentage 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 99/00 00/01 Fiscal Year Competing Use of Resources Increasing pension costs have directly reduced funding available for other priorities in the County budget. Currently the County pays 41 cents in benefits and 40 cents in pension costs for every dollar paid out in salary. Salaries and benefits accounted for more than 52% of the General Fund portion of the County budget in FY 2010-11. In the past several years, the loss of property tax revenue has forced the County to make substantial reductions in expenditures. The loss of revenue, coupled with increasing pension costs, has resulted in a reduction of services for the public. According to County reports, the County made $41.2 million in cuts in FY 2010-11, which was in addition to $139.4 million of cuts since FY 2008-09. There is a current projected gap of $50 million between revenues and expenditures for FY 2011-12. This structural deficit will likely result in yet another round of cuts to personnel and services. What Has Been Done? The Board and County management have publicly recognized that they have an increasing pension liability that is significant and unsustainable. Even some union representatives have concluded that pension reform is necessary. The Board, with union concurrence, implemented a change to address pension costs for new safety employees. In January 2007, after negotiation with the Deputy Sheriffs' Association (DSA), and Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 . . subsequent legislation (SB524 enacted as Government Code section 31484.9), the County created a second tier pension for new safety members. This changed the calculation of final average compensation to 36 months instead of the 12 highest months of salary and reduced the COLA from 3% to 2%. This plan covers approximately 80 out of 1,275 safety employees and without new legislation will expire, or 'sunset' in 2012. The County through its legislative advocate and support of the DSA anticipates extending or removing the sunset clause, so that all safety employees hired after January 2007 would receive the lower tier benefits. Another change, which was adopted by CCCERA, affected County employees hired after January 1, 2011. Some employees have been able to increase their final average compensation by accruing vacation hours throughout their employment and selling back up to 466 hours in the final twelve months of work. Not only does the employee receive the cash equal to the hours sold, but the value of the vacation hours is added to the salary to increase final average compensation. Newly hired employees cannot sell back vacation hours at termination to increase final average compensation. However, some employee groups can still sell back accrued vacation hours during the last year of employment to boost final average compensation. Additionally, in March 2011 the Board voted to no longer allow non-union managers to convert vacation into cash payments. While the County is responsible for paying the employer contribution rate, which varies by bargaining unit each year, it has also negotiated with employee labor unions in past years to pay a portion of the employee's share of costs of the retirement contribution as well. Coupled with the County 'pick-up' of the employee share, the County pays over 75% of the pension cost for each employee. Most union contracts, which cover 92% of County employees, will expire in June 2011. Changes made in past negotiations include elimination of retiree health benefits for new employees and a cap on employer-paid health benefits to existing employees for most employee groups. Union representatives, the Board and County management have recognized that additional concessions will need to be negotiated. Included in the latest State of the County report is the need to initiate the process to restructure pension benefits. What Can Be Done? When the economy was growing, pension benefits were substantially improved in public systems, and the County was no exception. Then when the economy tanked, investment returns went south, so pension contributions had to go up, just when counties and the State could least afford it. There are a number of avenues for pension benefits to be changed: Board action Board action that requires union agreement Legislation (generally requires Board and union agreement) Public initiatives—ballot measures Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 . . Litigation Bankruptcy (applies to cities only) Options to reduce the pension burden are numerous. Some can be achieved by Board and union action, such as items concerning compensation; most however require legislative change, which can either be special State legislation for the County, or approved by the legislature and signed by the Governor with statewide application. For the benefit of the reader, the Grand Jury has identified some of the options being considered by governmental agencies. The following chart indicates potential benefit changes and the level of required approval if considered by a county. Note that there are differing legal opinions as to the approval level of some of these benefit changes. BENEFIT CHANGE REQUIRED APPROVAL Design new pension tiers with lower Board for new hires* benefits Board/Union/Special State Legislation for current employees Utilize three year final average salary Board for new hires* rather than the highest year Board/Union/Special State • Legislation for current employees Eliminate terminal pay add-ons** Board if not in MOU • Board/Union if benefit in MOU • Reduce salaries Board/Union • Implement cap on vacation accrual Board/Union • Eliminate uniform pay and other pay items Board/Union • to reduce final compensation Eliminate the 'pick-up' of the employee's Board/Union contribution to the retirement plan Explore restructure of pension, to include a Board/Union defined contribution plan to offset reduction in defined benefit plan Increase retirement age State Legislation • Cap pensions State Legislation • Eliminate or reduce COLAs State Legislation • Eliminate purchase of additional service State Legislation year credits Eliminate retroactive increases in benefits State Legislation • (ie. increasing benefit from 2%@60 to 2%@55 and applying it to past years of service) * Legal opinions vary on whether the Board can design new tiers without State legislation ** Note that CCCERA has made a change for new employees Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 What Others Have Done Other counties, cities and the State have successfully modified pension benefits. In the November 2010 elections, six cities and two counties had some type of local pension reform on the ballot. In November 2006, the City of San Diego stripped the power to raise pension benefits from elected officials and from the collective bargaining process. That power now rests with the electorate. In 2008, Orange County passed Proposition "J" with 75% of the vote, requiring voter approval for increases in county employee retirement benefits. More recently, the City of San Diego has proposed to cap pension pay by excluding 'add-ons' or 'specialty pay' and use only base salaries to calculate benefits. The Little Hoover Commission, a bipartisan group appointed by the former governor and State legislature, issued a report in February 2011. The Commission recommended California state and local governments "roll back pensions for existing employees, dump guaranteed retirement payouts and put more of the pension burden on workers." Specifically they urge the Governor and Legislature to establish the legal authority to freeze the benefits of current employees and reduce them in future years. The Commission acknowledged the significant legal challenges to modifying pension benefits for current workers, but recognized that the problem cannot be solved without addressing the mounting pension obligations of current employees. A poll jointly conducted by the University of California, Berkeley and The Field Poll in February and March, 2011, found that California voters have changed their views about government pension benefits. By a margin of four to three, voters now view pension benefits as too generous. As recently as two years ago, The Field Poll found that 40% of voters believed the pension benefits of most government workers were at about the right level. The strongest support (73%) was for establishing an upper limit or salary cap when calculating pension benefits of public employees, followed by 69% favoring government workers paying more each month for their pension and health care benefits. FINDINGS 1. Pension benefits, as currently structured, are ultimately unsustainable. 2. Continued increases in pension cost may result in further reduction of public services. 3. The Board has taken some actions to reduce pension costs but more must be done to achieve sustainability. 4. Under the California Employer Retirement Law, the Board, without union agreement, could unilaterally adopt lower pension tiers and/or three-year averaging for final compensation for new employees. Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 • • • • 5. The Board could achieve lower pension benefits and costs, if successfully negotiated with the union, by reducing salaries and other pay items that currently increase final average compensation. Some pay items, such as uniform pay, could be eliminated and excluded from final average compensation. 6. While the financial impact of many pension changes will not be recognized in the short-term, the County—with Union agreement—could immediately reduce costs by approximately $18 million a year by eliminating its 'pick-up' portion of the employee's contribution to the retirement plan. 7. It is possible for retirees to receive more in pension benefits than the combined base salary those retirees earned while employed at the County. 8. Taxpayers are ultimately responsible for covering the shortfall between the cost of pensions and the amount accumulated from employee/employer contributions and pension fund investment income. 9. Some of the possible changes require State legislation, as noted in the table on . 10. Pension reform is complex due to the differing legal opinions on what can be done, who can make it happen and when it can be done. This has led to public interest. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. In order to bring about change, the Board should work with its union partners during the current contract negotiations for concessions to offset rising pension costs. 2. The Board should prioritize its focus on benefit changes that have an immediate financial impact, while pursuing legislative relief where necessary, to accomplish further reductions. (See table on ) 3. Those changes that can be made unilaterally by the Board for new employees should be adopted. (See table on ) 4. The Board should require employees to contribute more to their retirement costs. 5. County leadership should work expeditiously to eliminate the 'pick-up' portion of the employees' contributions to the retirement plan, saving up to $18 million a year. 6. The Board should seek special legislation to enable the County to cap retirement income so that no employee receives a pension greater than the base salary earned. 7. Given the complexity of pension reform issues, the number of legislative changes being proposed and ongoing labor negotiations, the Board should keep the public informed of what is being proposed and the Board's positions on these issues. Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 . . . . . REQUIRED RESPONSES Findings Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 1 - 10 Recommendations Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 1 - 7 . Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Sixteen cities and eighteen special districts provide benefits to their elected leaders in some fashion. These benefits may include salary, meeting fees, health care insurance costs, pension or deferred compensation, life insurance premiums, cell phone usage, and internet connections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All cities and special districts should conduct an annual public review of compensation provided to their respective elected Councils and Boards. This review should include such items as salary, meeting fees, health care insurance costs, pension/deferred compensation, life insurance premiums, cell phone usage, and internet connections. The public review should address whether or not changes in compensation are warranted.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
These special districts, as part of the annual review in
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The City of Richmond fully utilizes their maintenance management system which the Grand Jury identifies as a best practice for the County and all of the cities located within the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Available maintenance management software should be fully utilized.
F2:
Exiting the leased Martinez maintenance facility and consolidating maintenance operations with the County facility could result in cost savings to Martinez.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
That the County Board of Supervisors and the Martinez City Council consider identifying representatives to explore the feasibility of consolidating their maintenance facilities and maintenance management systems.
F3:
Spare parts inventories in Contra Costa County, Richmond, Brentwood, and Martinez are much higher than the $206 average of all agencies reporting such inventories.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That Contra Costa County, Richmond, Brentwood, and Martinez should review their spare parts purchasing practices and determine what steps can be taken to permanently reduce on-hand inventories. www.mtc.ca.gov/library/commute profile Contra Costa County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1103
F4:
The number of city and county vehicles being taken home after work results in significant taxpayer expense.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
That Contra Costa County and cities which allow take-home vehicles (Antioch, Brentwood, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, and San Ramon) should review this practice and determine what steps can be taken to reduce the number of take-home vehicles and specify the circumstances when take-home vehicles may be used.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
No discussion of the 2010 Bond's possible financial ramifications took place at open Board meetings before the Board passed the resolution to proceed with a ballot measure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
When contemplating future taxing measures, the Board should allow sufficient time for full disclosure to the public of financial information including legal fees, underwriting costs and repayment obligations. The Board should develop a written process addressing discussion of the financial consequences of taxing measures in a public forum and share their proposal with the public in the next 180 days.
F2:
Some of the capital projects, such as solar panels, insulation and window replacement, to be financed with the 2010 Bond should generate energy cost savings for the Districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
To verify the estimated energy savings from specific planned capital projects, there should be an annual audit of energy expenditures. The audit should focus on and reflect any costs reduced by the use of solar panels funded by the Bond. This audit should be done within 180 days after the initial solar panels are installed and continue on an annual basis for 3 years.
F3:
The organization restructuring of the General Counsel's responsibilities has not resulted in anticipated operational effectiveness and may not have fulfilled the cost savings originally projected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board should review the effectiveness of combining the General Counsel's responsibility for legal work and services with transportation, maintenance and food services. They should also analyze the impact of combining these responsibilities on actual costs. Contra Costa County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1102 . . •
F4:
In addition to the anticipated relief to the general fund from specific 2010 Bond projects, further savings could be achieved through further salary and benefit expenses reductions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board should continue to pursue reducing salaries and benefits to address the District's 2011-2012 budget shortfalls.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Brentwood developed an interactive fiscal model to forecast 10 years into the future in order to reveal potential problems and allow time to address them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Brentwood should continue to use its interactive fiscal model and make it available to other cities.
F2:
Establishing sufficient General Fund reserves and specific fund reserves gives Brentwood greater flexibility in fiscal management and the ability to react to changing circumstances.
F3:
Before reducing staff and expenses, Brentwood measured the impact of each reduction on public service delivery.
F4:
Outcome-based contracts allow for cost savings and greater control of results.
F5:
Benchmarking has been a useful tool for Brentwood, but could be more useful if it included other City activities to measure performance and solicited comparison data from peer agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
To more effectively measure performance, Brentwood should expand benchmarking to other city services and collaborate with other peer agencies to establish similar benchmarking standards.
F6:
Because employee benefits given in good times may not be sustainable, a new tier for new non-safety hires was implemented, but not for public safety employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Brentwood should reduce the financial impact of public safety employee pension and other benefit costs for the City’s future financial stability. CONCLUSION While there are no required recommendations for other cities, the Grand Jury suggests that cities consider implementing a ten-year interactive fiscal model if they do not currently have one. Brentwood has indicated a willingness to share its model. An interactive fiscal model serves as a dynamic financial tool to help guide city council decisions during the budget process or when considering costly projects. In addition, other cities should consider undertaking a benchmarking project of measurable key activities. This would help ensure that local governments are providing services as cost- effectively and efficiently as possible.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
CFS lost 119 positions from January 2008 to January 2009. Of those, 65 social workers were eliminated from the foster care program.
F2:
Contra Costa County was serving approximately 1,100 foster children as of December 31, 2009.
F3:
CFS foster care case file information is both computerized and on paper. Information is not consistent between the two types of files and neither contains complete information.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
CFS shall establish procedures among providers for the exchange of essential information about the children and families they serve.
R2:
CFS shall ensure that all service providers including CHDP staff, mental health practitioners, social workers and school personnel have access to all information about the child.
F4:
Access to computerized case files is restricted to the social workers.
F5:
The court case files were well-organized and easy to follow. In contrast, the CFS files were cumbersome and incomplete.
F6:
Not all CFS records contain documentation of school attendance. There is no school attendance policy for children under the age of sixteen. Children 16 years and older must attend school for foster parent payments to continue. Foster parents are responsible for the child’s attendance. Social workers may or may not be notified of truancy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
CFS shall make tracking of school attendance of foster children a top priority.
F7:
Frequent changes in home and school placements negatively affect a foster child’s academic performance and future success in life.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
CFS shall make tracking of school attendance of foster children a top priority.
F8:
Medical assessments, social assessments, and immunizations are completed within 30 days of the foster child’s removal from the home. Social workers do not automatically receive these records.
F9:
Due to lack of record sharing, immunizations are sometimes done repeatedly in error.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
CFS shall establish procedures among providers for the exchange of essential information about the children and families they serve.
R2:
CFS shall ensure that all service providers including CHDP staff, mental health practitioners, social workers and school personnel have access to all information about the child.
F10:
Mental health records require court or parental authorization for release to CFS.
F11:
Training of mental health service providers in the treatment of childhood trauma is insufficient.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors shall ensure that providers of mental health services to foster children shall have training in current trauma-focused therapy.
F12:
The staff of Home Finders has been reduced from 8 to 3 workers, leaving each with a caseload of approximately 300 homes to assess for new and continuing foster care placement.
F13:
CFS works toward reunification of foster children with their immediate families as a first priority. If not possible, placement for foster children is with a relative or a licensed foster care home. CONCLUSIONS The enormous cost of foster care in Contra Costa County is not solely monetary. Foster children who must be removed from their homes bear the highest cost. Foster care, designed as a short-term safety net, can often result in extended placement disconnected from any family members. All children deserve a permanent and safe home where they are supported and nurtured on the path to becoming productive and responsible adults (California Blue Ribbon Commission). Bureaucratic constraints often impede the open sharing of communication among the many service providers involved in the foster child’s life. Decisions are best made for a child’s future when all information is shared.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
After all efforts to reunify the child with his or her parents have failed, the next action of CFS shall be to locate extended family members utilizing the nationwide Family Finding Network.
R5:
The Board of Supervisors shall make the needs of foster children a top priority when allocating and administering public resources.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Some LAFCO members committed ethical breaches by indicating that they spoke on behalf of LAFCO and the Mayors’ Conference on matters not before LAFCO.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All LAFCO members, including the public member, should receive regular training per AB 1234*, on the LAFCO Commissioners Handbook with particular focus on LAFCO’s mission statement and ethics, as well as the Updated Commissioner Representation policy (1.4 Rules and Procedures – Section F.5).
F2:
Certain other LAFCO members weighed in inappropriately on the statements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
LAFCO should promptly consider appropriate action when a violation of its policies occurs. *AB 1234 - Local Officials Ethics Training Requirement The newest of these ethics training requirements applies to certain local public officials. While similar to the rules for state officials that have been in place since 1998, the rules applicable to local officials are different in content, including a requirement that these officials receive training not only in applicable ethics laws but also in ethics principles and agency rules. NEPOTISM ALIVE IN CEMETERY DISTRICT
F3:
At a minimum, these improprieties created the appearance of nepotism.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
An annual report for the KCMF should be issued, and a County-linked website should be established to clarify mission, application and selection process and requirements.
F4:
The formation of an outside, impartial panel to interview and select an applicant was appropriate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The BOS should consider re-establishing the Finance Committee oversight of grant awards.
F5:
The adoption of a County anti-nepotism policy was proper.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The BOS should ensure that all County mitigation funds, or similar funds under the control of a single Supervisor, receive proper supervision. OVERALL FINDING The Grand Jury finds that:
F6:
Due to a lack of publicly available information about the KCMF, not all non-profit organizations, nor the public, are aware of the fund, its mission, and its processes, and thus are unable to benefit from it.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.