Gran Jurado del Condado de Contra Costa

2011-2012

14 informes

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: Employment & Human Services Director - reports monthly to the County Administrator on collaboration within County Departments and with community organizations. The recent addition of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Call Center has required significant collaboration with both internal and external stakeholders.
F2: states that eight cities, including Concord, spend more than the county-wide average for salary md meeting fees. Response: The City of Concord has no independent information to verify this finding. With respect to Concord, the City agrees with this finding.
F3: County Administrator meets monthly with all the City Managers of Contra Costa County to discuss ways to cooperate between the Cities and the County. Recently these have resulted in closer collaboration in the areas of fue services and library activities. Sincerely, =era1 D. Glover, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors cc: Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors Contra David Twa County Administration Building Costa Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street, Room 106 and Martinez, California 94553-1293 County County Administrator (925) 33819 00 John Gioia, Is t District Candice Anderson,pnd District Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District Karen Mltchoff, 4th District Federal D. Glover, 5th District October 2 1,20 13 Stephen D. Conlin, Foreperson Court Street Martinez, CA 94553-009 1 Dear Mr. Conlin, This letter is in response to your letter of October 8,2013 regarding Grand Jury Report No. 1 107. Grand Jury Report No. 1 107 recommended that the Board of Supervisors seek special legislation to enable the County to cap retirement income so that no employee receives a pension greater than the base salary earned. The Board of Supervisors' response was that the County was seeking implementation of such an action. Since Grand Jury Report No. 11 07 was issued, the landscape of Contra Costa County pensions has changed dramatically. Contra Costa did begin the process of negotiating pension reform. All of the contracts negotiated in the 201 0-20 12 negotiation cycle included language for implementation of new General and Safety pension tiers. Terms of the new tiers were negotiated, language was pending as Senate Bill 1494, and the County had requested new pension rates from the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association (CCCERA) when AB 340 and AB 197 (Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013) derailed the County's pending bill. Senate Bill 1494 included the following provisions: 1) Safety Tier D - 3% at 55 years of age, 2% COLA, 36 month final average compensation, and a 90% compensation cap, the tier was to be mandatory for new and rehired safety employees; and 2) General Tier N - 2% at 60 years of age, 2% COLA, 36 month final average compensation, and a 90% compensation cap, this tier was also to be mandatory for new and rehired safety employees. The County discontinued pursuit of this bill's adoption due to the adoption of the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA). PEPRA includes the following provisions: 1) SafetyIOption 2 - 2.7% at 57 years of age, 2% COLA, 36 month final average compensation, a maximum salary for pension calculation of $132,120 (plus CPI), and elimination of terminal pays; and 2) General Tier - 2% at 62 years of age, 2% COLA, 36 month final average compensation, a maximum salary for pension calculation of $1 10,100 (plus CPI), and elimination of terminal pays. Another change since the implementation of PEPRA occurred due to a policy change by the CCCERA Board. The Board of Retirement adopted an updated Board Compensation Policy listing items of compensation that are included in "compensation", "compensation earnable", and "final compensation" as defined in Government Code Sections 3 1460, 31461, and 31462.1. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contract me. p9& era1 Glover -chair, Contra Costa County cc: Board of Supervisors -- ,C ONTRA COSTA W A T E R D ISTRICT m 1331 Concord Avenue P.O. Box H20 Concord, CA 94524 (925) 688-8000 FAX (925) 68&8122 www.ccwater.com November 4,20 13 Mr. Stephen D. Conlin, Foreperson Directors Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Joseph L. Campbell P.O. Box 91 1A President Martinez, CA 94553-0091 Karl L. Wandry Vice President Dear Mr. Conlin: Bette Boatmun Lisa M. Borba John A. Burgh The following is Contra Costa Water District's (CCM'D) response to the Grand Jury's follow-up on Report Number 1104, entitled "Benefits for Elected Board Jerry Brown Geneml Manager Members". This letter addresses the follow-up for Recommendations #3 and #4 of the 20 1 1-201 2 Grand Jury Report.
F4: Bdth Care benefits are provided to elected Board members of twelve cities and nine special districts. Response: The City of Concord has no independent information to verify this finding. With respect to the City of Concord, the City agrees with this finding.
F5: Pension benefits, with potential long-term financial implications for the agency, are provided to Council and Board members by twelve cities and three special districts. Response: The City of Concord has no independent information to verify this finding. With respect to the City of Concord, the City agrees with this finding.
Recomendaciones adicionales 5

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: Employment & Human Services Director - reports monthly to the County Administrator on collaboration within County Departments and with community organizations. The recent addition of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Call Center has required significant collaboration with both internal and external stakeholders.
R2: states that as part of the annual review in Recommendation #1, a review should be made to consider whether it would be appropriate to implement reductions of salary and meeting fee expenditures to bring them in line with the other cities. Response: As part of their annual review of the City's operating budget, including the Council's operating budget, Concord City Council members have individually decided to voluntarily reduce their pay & benefits, matching the sacrifices that regular employees have made in each of the last two years. Council members are continuing this practice into Fiscal Year 201 1-12. Tkg €kancLJtr~y's~e-Mm Mat the "appropriate"payom3 benefit level for Council members should be the average level of all cities in the county, is not supported by the Concord City Council. Each city within the County has differing levels of budget, population, and service responsibilities; therefore a "one- size-fits-all" solution hardly seems appropriate. As the Grand Jury's information mentions, Concord is the largest City in the County by population but its Council members are not the highest paidhnefited council members. Concord's City Council will continue to consider their individual pay and benefit levels at its annual budget reviews, and will continue to evaluate the appropriateness of those pay and benefit levels in light of prevailing fiscal conditions. Contact: Linda Chew Fareperson (925) 957-5638 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report #I104 ELECTED BOARD MEMBERSHIP Public Service or Public Employment? TO: Cities and Towns in Contra Costa County (see distribution list) lndependent Special Districts (see distribution list)
R3: These special districts, as part of the annual review in recommendation I, should consider whether it would be appropriate to implement a reduction ofsalary and meeting fee for expenditure to bring them in line with other special districts. CCWD agreed with this recommendation in its original response, and subsequently completed a review of Board member meeting fees (compensation) during the development of its 2013-2014 budget. Board members are currently compensated $100 per meeting attended, maximum of ten meetings per month, for total maximum compensation of $1,000 per month. Board members do not receive any salary. The District compared its Board member compensation practices to other comparable regional utility special districts with elected Boards, and noted that its Board compensation levels are at or below those of other regional special districts. Also, there has been no increase in the $100 per meeting compensation for over twelve years. These results were discussed by the Board at the Board Study Session held October 1 1, 20 13. The Board thoroughly evaluated but made no change in Board compensation practices with the adoption of the 2013-2014 budget in May 20 12.
R4: The policy of paying health care insurance costs for Council and Board members should be reviewed to determine whether this practice is appropriate. Response: This recommendation has been implemented, in that the Concord City Council revie.ws its own and the entire City's operating budget annually through the budget adoption process. Concord continues to provide this benefit to its Council members because it is viewed as an appropriate Council benefit.
R5: The policy of paying pension or deferred compensation for Council and Board members should be reviewed to detenine whether this practice is appropriate. Response: This reconimendation has been implemented, in that the Concord City Council reviews its own and the entire City's operating budget annually through the budget adoption process. Concord continues to provide this benefit to its Council members because it is viewed as an appropriate Council benefit. 1 appreciate the time and effort that you and the Grand Jury members have spent considering these matters. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to con tact me. Very tnlly yours, Mayor
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 16 hallazgos
F1: The Grand Jury commends the many citizens who serve on bond oversight committees and devote considerable time and effort to the task, without any compensation. Response We agree with this finding and support the commendation as fourteen citizens of our county have served on the District's Bond Oversight Committee since it was formed in 2002.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: A district's ballot language should inform voters of all intended uses of bond funds, the specific projects to be undertaken, the schools where the projects will be undertaken, the district's initial priorities, and a realistic estimate of project costs. Response 1 Measure E was passed four years prior to the Grand Jury's report May 21, 2012. However, the ballot language was consistent with Recommendation 1 of the Grand Jury report. In future bond elections the District will continue the practice of Recommendation 1.
F2: Ballot language that is overly general in identifying specific projects, and fails to indicate priorities and at least a realistic estimate of project costs, impedes meaningful and effective oversight and accountability. Response 2 The District disagrees. The Measure E ballot language included the Governing Board approved master plan of July 21, 2008, which detailed each of the projects. The Measure E Citizens' Oversight Committee was provided with a copy of master plan, which includes cost estimates for each project.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: A district should disclose and explain in the ballot language if, and in what ways, bond funds will be used to provide General Fund relief for the district. Response 2 Measure E was passed four years prior to the Grand Jury's report May 21, 2012, and did not provide general fund relief. In future bond elections the District will implement Recommendation 2.
F3: Bond proceeds are sometimes used to provide General Fund relief in various ways, which even if lawful, may not have always been fully disclosed to voters in the ballot language. Response 3 The District disagrees. The ballot language included the Governing Board approved master plan of July 12, 2008, which did not include providing General Fund relief. The Measure E Citizens' Oversight Committee was provided with a copy of the master plan and uses it to verify expenditures that do not include General Fund relief.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: In recruiting candidates for appointment to oversight committees, a district should seek nominations from the groups required to be represented on the committee by Education Code Section 15282(a). Response 3 Prior to the Grand Jury report this has been the past practice of the Governing Boards. The Governing Board will continue to practice Recommendation 3.
F4: District boards have an inherent conflict of interest in selecting, and in some cases, having the power to remove with or without cause, the members of the oversight committee who are required to oversee the district's spending of bond funds. Response 4 The District disagrees. The Governing Board is very open and transparent to the selection process of the oversight committee and has never removed a member.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: A district should consider ways to recruit independent, qualified and motivated applicants from the community, including announcements in local media, district newsletters, solicitations to local civic and professional groups, and mailing postcards to residents to solicit applications when the ballot materials are mailed. Response 4 Prior to the Grand Jury report the District already implemented a process to recruit qualified and motivated individuals for the oversight committee. The District will continue to practice Recommendation 4.
F5: Districts do not consistently reach out to the legally-mandated organizations, to local professional associations, community groups, or to district residents generally, to seek independent, qualified and motivated nominees for their bond oversight committees. Response 5 The District disagrees. The oversight bylaws states, "The Committee shall consist of at least seven (7) members appointed by the Board of Trustees from a list of candidates submitting written applications, and based on criteria established by Prop 39, to wit: One (1) member shall be the parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the District. One (1) member shall be both a parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the District and active in a parent-teacher organization, such as the P.T.A. or a school site council. One (1) member active in a business organization representing the business community located in the District. One (1) member active in a senior citizens' organization. • One (1) member active in a bona-fide taxpayers association. Two (2) members of the community at-large." Through the Governing Board's application process, the Measure E Citizens' Oversight Committee is composed of nine members that meet the criteria established by Prop 39.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: A district should require all candidates for bond oversight committees to submit written applications listing their background, qualifications, a statement of interest, and disclosure of any prior employment by, or prior involvement or business relationship with, the district. Response 5 Prior to the Grand Jury report the District already required potential bond oversight committee members to submit written applications listing their background, qualifications, a statement of interest, and disclosure of any prior employment by, or prior involvement or business relationship with the District. The District will continue to practice
F6: There does not always appear to be a consistent and transparent process for interested persons to be nominated, apply for, and be appointed to membership on oversight committees, or disclosure of any previous employment by, or other prior involvement or business relationship with, the district. Response 6 The District disagrees. Once the application is circulated and has been responded to by interested candidates, a sub- committee of the Governing Board reviews the applications and works hard to assure that each of the criteria established is accomplished. In addition, the sub-committee works to assure balance that each of the four communities within the District is represented.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: A district should make available to committee members, for their consideration in creating committee bylaws and operating procedures, copies of: California League of Bond Oversight Committee recommended Best Practices San Diego County Taxpayers Association "Oversight Committee Best Practices" guide • California Coalition for Adequate School Housing "Proposition 39 – Best Practices Handbook" Little Hoover Commission 2009 Report "Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight" California League of Cities "A Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act" State Controller's Office 2011 Audit Report on the Los Angeles Community College District's bond • construction program Response This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. All materials referenced in the report will be made available to Bond Oversight Committee members for review by no later than January 1, 2013.
F7: Districts do not consistently provide timely, adequate and independent training or resource materials for members of their bond oversight committees that explain their role, duties and functions, or provide training in the skills needed to analyze the kinds of financial data that bond oversight committee members are asked to review. Response 7 The District partially disagrees. All committee members are provided a binder with materials related to the bond measure including but not limited to the master plan, the ballot measure, the bylaws and the Brown Act. A formal training is conducted on the role of the committee and the Brown Act.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: A district should ensure that websites for their oversight committees are prominently displayed on their homepages, are easily navigable, and include current and complete postings of all required items. Response 7 Prior to the Grand Jury report the District moved its Measure E Website postings to the Governing Board's web-based program BoardDocs, which is easily navigable, in January 2012. The District will continue to post its Measure E materials on BoardDocs.
F8: Although all oversight committees have bylaws, they do not appear to include or take into account "best practices" recommended by independent groups. Response 8 The District disagrees. Although the bylaws do not explicitly account for "best practices," nor are they required to, the members of the committee bring a lot professional experience to their quarterly meetings that translate into best practices while they contemplate the Measure E projects and expenditures. Furthermore, the District employs best practices on implementing the voter approved bond projects.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: A district should provide oversight committees with complete, detailed and comprehensive financial data relating to the expenditure of bond revenues, showing the amount of funds originally budgeted and allocated for each project, amounts expended to date and amount committed to each project, percentage completion of each project, and all approved or anticipated change orders. Response 8 Prior to the Grand Jury report the District has always provided the Measure E Citizens' Oversight Committee detailed financial reports. The District will continue to practice Recommendation 8.
F9: The public websites required to be maintained by districts for their bond oversight committees are not always easily located or navigable. Response 9 The District disagrees. The Measure E Citizens' Oversight Committee's agendas, minutes, reports and other related materials are posted on the Governing Board's web-based program, BoardDocs. The Governing Board has used BoardDocs for over six years to communicate to the public in an open and transparent manner all of its business including the bond oversight committee. There have been no complaints from the public relative to location or navigation of the Measure E bond oversight.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9: A district should provide financial data and reports to committee members sufficiently prior to meetings to permit meaningful and effective review and oversight. Response 9 Prior to the Grand Jury report the District has always provided the Measure Citizens' Oversight Committee with the financial data at least 72 hours before their meeting. The District will continue to practice Recommendation 9.
F10: The websites required to be maintained by districts for their bond oversight committees are not always timely or complete in posting agenda materials, minutes, reports and other required items. Response 10 The District disagrees. Pursuant to the Brown Act the Measure E Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee receives their agenda materials, minutes, reports and other required items at least 72 hours in advance of their meetings, as well as, being posted on BoardDocs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10: A district should afford their bond oversight committees an opportunity to provide input in defining the scope and content of the required annual performance audit. Response 10 The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be, prior to the 2011-2012 performance audit.
F11: Financial reports furnished to oversight committees by the districts are not always complete and comprehensive enough to allow meaningful and effective review and oversight. Response 11 The District disagrees. The Measure E Oversight Citizens' Committee requests and receives the original and revised budgets, a statement of revenues & expenditures and a balance sheet on a quarterly basis.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: The district's annual independent performance audits should be detailed and comprehensive enough in scope, including a review of procurement practices, to allow the committee to identify waste and to evaluate the cost- effectiveness of the district's construction and facilities improvement program. AUHSD Response to Grand Jury Report 1208 4.1 Response 11 Prior to the Grand Jury report the District's annual performance audit complied with the California State Constitution Article XIII A, 1(b) (3) (C), "A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the specific projects listed." The District will continue comply with the California State Constitution.
F12: Financial data and reports are not always furnished to oversight committees early enough to allow time for thorough review prior to meetings. Response 12 The District disagrees. The Measure E Citizens' Oversight Committee receives all of their financial reports at least 72 hours prior to their scheduled quarterly meetings.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12: A district should request that its oversight committees issue timely, comprehensive and informative reports, which should be posted on the district's website, along with a final, closing report when the bonds funds have been spent and the committee's work completed. Response 12 Prior to the Grand Jury report the Measure E Citizens Oversight Committee reports were issued in a timely and comprehensive manner. The committee will continue to practice Recommendation 12. AUHSD Response to Grand Jury Report 1208 Office of the Associate Superintendent Of Business and Operations Tim Forrester ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Preparing Students for Success in College, Career, and Life August 1, 2012 Lloyd Bell, Foreperson Court Street P. O. Box 911 Martinez, CA 94553 Comments on 2011-2012 Contra Costa Grand Jury Report No. 1208, "School Bond Re: Oversight Committees, Raising the Bar" Findings and Recommendations Dear Foreperson Bell: We are pleased to respond to your general findings on School Bond Oversight Committees. Although not specific to Antioch Unified School District, we respond to your findings and recommendations below. Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Governing Board of the Antioch Unified School District files this comment with regard to the 2011-2012 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report #1208 Findings and Recommendations.
F13: Districts do not typically afford their oversight committees an opportunity to provide input into defining the scope and content of the district's required annual performance audit. Response 13 District agrees. Specifically the District advises the Measure E Citizens' Oversight Committee that pursuant to the California State Constitution Article XIII A, 1(b) (3) (C), "A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the specific projects listed."
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R13: Districts do not typically afford their oversight committees an opportunity to provide input into defining the scope and content of the district's required annual performance audit. (3) Partially Disagree – Given that we have not yet had an opportunity to perform our first required annual performance audit, we do not agree with this finding. As we plan this activity we will solicit the Committee for their suggestions.
F14: The performance audits provided by some districts to their oversight committees are so limited in scope and conclusory as to prevent meaningful and effective oversight. Response 14 The District disagrees. Pursuant to the California State Constitution Article XIII A, 1(b) (3) (C), “A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the specific projects listed." The annual Measure E performance audit is in compliance with the state constitution.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R14: The performance audits provided by some districts to their oversight committees are so limited in scope and conclusory as to prevent meaningful and effective oversight. • (3) Partially Disagree – Given that we have not yet had an opportunity to perform our first required annual performance audit, we do not agree with this finding. As we plan this activity we will strive to provide a meaningful report to the Committee that allows them to fulfill their charge.
F15: The annual reports required to be issued by bond oversight committees are not always timely, and vary significantly in their style, scope and content. Response 15 The District disagrees. The Measure E Citizens' Oversight Committee presents their written annual report to the Governing Board by the end of the third quarter of the fiscal year for the prior year fiscal year activity. This is determined by the timing of the issuance of financial and performance audits that are received by the oversight committee at their quarterly January meeting after the close of the fiscal year. Their report is in compliance with the bylaws.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R15: The annual reports required to be issued by bond oversight committees are not always timely, and vary significantly in their style, scope and content. (3) Partially Disagree – Given that we have not yet had an opportunity to perform our first required annual performance audit, we do not agree with this finding. As we plan this activity we will make an effort to schedule its completion in a timely fashion so as to make its findings meaningful to the Committee and thus the community.
F16: Although not legally required for parcel taxes, some districts have provided voters with detailed project lists in the ballot materials, and then appointed oversight committees to oversee the district's use of these funds. The Grand Jury commends and endorses this practice as promoting voter transparency and fiscal accountability. Response 16 The District agrees. The District has two parcel taxes that include an oversight committee.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R16: Although not legally required for parcel taxes, some districts have provided voters with detailed project lists in the ballot materials, and then appointed oversight committees to oversee the district's use of these funds. The Grand Jury commends and endorses this practice as promoting voter transparency and fiscal accountability. (1) Agree As required by Section 933.05(b) of the California Government Code, below are the responses to each Grand Jury recommendation. As prescribed in the aforementioned code and reiterated in the Grand Jury memo dated May 21, 2012 the responses will be selected from one of the following options:
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: The County's mission statement provides a foundation upon which the County can begin to build a performance management process.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The County should review information available regarding the development and implementation of a standard framework for performance management.
F2: Many of the department goals stated in the County's budget document do not contain measurement metrics needed to establish clarity of purpose and measurability of progress.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The County should adopt and implement a formalized, uniform performance management process, and identify funds to carry out this activity.
F3: Performance management is now a recognized "best practice" in the public sector that can be applied in the County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The County should assign clear responsibility for managing and monitoring development and implementation of a performance management process.
F5: No one has taken overall responsibility for implementing a performance management process Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 1216 v5.0 in the County.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F2: Evaluations that do not include feedback regarding the quality of performance are not useful to employees.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors should direct that these reviews be based upon the five key processes identified in the State's Employee Performance Management Cycle.
F3: The performance evaluation process already in place in the Clerk-Recorder/Elections Department could provide lessons and guidance as to what practices are effective.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The Board of Supervisors should assign responsibility for tracking annual performance reviews.
F4: Contrary to the beliefs held by some County managers, numerous methods exist to recognize and thereby motivate employees aside from monetary remuneration.
F5: Because there is no process for sharing performance management initiatives and experiences between departments, the County may not be getting the benefits of lessons learned.
F6: The County can use the State's Employee Performance Management Cycle as a model for a performance evaluation program. Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 1214
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: The large number of vacancies in the County's appointed bodies, sometimes exceeding 50% of membership, makes it difficult for them to fulfill their missions.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The County should identify funds within the current budget to create a basic website template for its appointed bodies.
F2: In some cases, the lack of accurate and complete information on available websites, especially accomplishments, makes it difficult for those interested to find out about an appointed body.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The County should identify funds to require each appointed body to post its membership, membership requirements, agendas, minutes, annual report, meeting schedule, mission, and accomplishments on a single location.
F3: The absence of easily accessible information about these bodies may make it more difficult to recruit and appoint volunteers.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The County should use additional means for recruiting members for appointed bodies, such as town hall meetings and job fairs.
F4: The County's current efforts at recruiting candidates for appointed bodies leave too many positions unfilled.
F5: Supervisor town hall meetings as well as job fairs could provide opportunities to recruit citizens for appointed bodies.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: Declining revenue and increasing personnel costs have placed many of the County's fire agencies in a challenging, and sometimes dire, financial position. There is a need to examine alternatives to how County fire agencies are structured and how they should most effectively deploy their equipment for the services they deliver.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Any proposed parcel tax by any fire agency seeking immediate relief for current deficit issues should include a "sunset clause" limiting duration. Any proposed parcel tax by any fire agency seeking immediate relief for current deficit issues should include a commitment to promptly undertake identification and evaluation of alternative service delivery models. All fire agencies and the County should conduct, on an individual agency and county-wide basis, evaluations of alternative service models utilizing independent consultants with a history of analyzing fire agency challenges.
F3: Under their current operating models, it is not feasible for some fire agencies to reduce expenses enough to meet projected revenue without impacting service levels.
F4: In the short term, to provide the service levels that the public currently expects, additional revenue must be found for some individual fire agencies.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Fire agencies, LAFCO, and the County should find ways to cooperate with one another in the evaluation and adoption of alternative service delivery models.
F5: In the long term, approaching common problems at a County-wide regional level could offer additional solutions.
F6: Other California fire agencies have successfully implemented innovative cost reduction models and strategies, often by consolidating fire agencies, after engaging external consultants with industry expertise.
F7: Creating and pursuing a County-wide strategy will require extraordinary leadership and cooperation at both the County and individual district levels. Contra Costa County 2011-2012 Grand Jury Report 1211
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 9 hallazgos
F1: The budget process, government accounting systems, and financial statements provided to the public are complex and not readily understandable to most residents trying to assess the fiscal health of their city.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R4: The city should consider adjusting its reporting process to include additional indicators of fiscal health in an easily accessible and understandable format.
R5: The city should consider creating a dashboard of fiscal health indicators on its website.
F2: Review of examples of financial reports from cities made it clear that despite the intent for transparency and full disclosure, the documents were often difficult to understand.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R4: The city should consider adjusting its reporting process to include additional indicators of fiscal health in an easily accessible and understandable format.
R5: The city should consider creating a dashboard of fiscal health indicators on its website.
F3: Comparing the financial health of cities is difficult based only on information currently available to the public.
F4: Not all cities have approved reserve policies or guidelines in place, making use of reserve levels for an assessment of financial health incomplete.
F5: Cities have differing definitions and measures of reserves, which may prevent meaningful comparisons between the cities on this gauge of financial health.
F6: It was often impossible to verify whether a city was meeting its reserve level policy using publicly available numbers, definitions, and guidance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The city should provide its city council and residents with a budget to actual performance comparison and the status of unrestricted reserves on a quarterly basis. Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 1213
F7: Some cities have had difficulty maintaining GFOA minimum recommended levels of unrestricted reserves, whether or not they had approved policies requiring maintenance of defined levels.
F8: A city's ability to respond to future shortfalls may be impaired if it lacks a reserve policy containing specific plans for restoring reserves to a minimum required level.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The city should consider having a reserve policy that addresses recommended minimum unrestricted reserve levels, the processes for drawing down reserves, and the process for replacing reserves when they are below the recommended level.
F9: There are other key financial indicators in addition to levels of reserves that could provide a better picture of a city's financial health.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: To increase financial transparency, the city should consider disclosing to the public the following key indicators of financial health: days cash available, working capital and ratio of retirement obligations to general fund revenue.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos
F1: There are an inadequate number of shelter beds in the County for the homeless youth population.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should consider exploring the development of additional shelter services for homeless youth and transitional housing for individuals leaving foster care.
F2: Adding to the problem of an inadequate number of youth shelter beds, there are no youth shelters outside of West Contra Costa County, which does not serve the needs of the rest of the County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should consider exploring the development of additional shelter services for homeless youth and transitional housing for individuals leaving foster care.
F3: Little has been done to educate the public about homelessness even though it is identified as one of the three main tasks of the County's Homeless Program.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The County should develop educational outreach beyond the information included on the County's website to strengthen public awareness of homelessness.
F4: There has been limited progress toward establishing benchmarks, measuring achievement of outcomes, and using these data to evaluate and communicate the effectiveness of programs and services. Contra Costa County 2011-2012 Grand Jury Report 1212
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The County should consider incorporating data from the Homeless Management Information System to create a performance planning, measurement, and reporting system that can be used for internal decision-making and for communicating results and progress achieved to its stakeholders.
F5: The lack of available, affordable, permanent, supportive housing in the County poses an even greater challenge than in past years given the increased number of homeless families with children.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The County should consider reordering its priorities in serving the homeless population in order to address the increasing number of homeless families with children.
F6: Because of ongoing economic challenges, it is likely that temporary shelters will continue to be necessary to serve the homeless population.
F7: Without the extensive collaboration that now exists among concerned organizations, the Homeless Program would be less effective.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: Funding shortfalls are contributing to the deterioration of the detention facilities.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The County should meet with the union representing General Service employees regarding expanding the use of voluntary inmate labor to perform minor maintenance and repairs at the detention facilities.
F2: Voluntary inmate labor could be used for minor maintenance and repair activities. Current practice validates expanding the use of voluntary inmate labor for routine duties.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: The program lacks data on outcomes, such as reducing nursing home admissions, making it difficult to measure success in the provision of services and in identifying cost savings.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: EHSD should consider developing, tracking and annual reporting of quantitative outcome objectives that address service delivery and cost savings, which result from diverting clients from more costly institutional care.
F2: It is unclear what steps the County's IHSS program might take to adjust its operations, caseloads, staffing, procedures, and payments to providers to reflect proposed funding cuts.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: IHSS should consider developing contingency plans that spell out how it will adjust to proposed State funding reductions.
F3: Social workers have large caseloads, diminishing their ability to monitor changes in client needs and making any needed adjustments to care plans. Contra Costa County 2011-2012 Grand Jury Report 1207
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: IHSS should consider decreasing social worker caseloads by recruiting, training and placing volunteers who could relieve social work staff of paperwork, record review, phone follow-up with clients and other administrative tasks.
F4: Each of the three Public Integrity/Quality Assurance staff persons is expected to monitor services to approximately 2,300 clients each month, decreasing IHSS' ability to identify and deal with fraud.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: IHSS should consider having social workers make more of their regular home visits unannounced and provide reports of these visits to supplement the efforts of the Program Integrity/Quality Assurance staff.
F5: Manual signature verification is time-consuming and may not be cost-effective.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: IHSS should consider the costs and benefits of automating signature verification functions.
F6: Fraud prevention and detection could be improved by maintaining client photos, establishing a complaint hotline, and increasing unannounced visits to the home during authorized service hours.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: EHSD should consider identifying funds to cover incremental costs to use the existing Information and Assistance Program hotline to handle complaints.
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R7: IHSS should consider maintaining photos of clients for use during home visits to monitor for possible identity theft and to find or identify a client should the need arise.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: To date, four years after the FLIP report was completed and primarily because of budget constraints, very little progress in program implementation has occurred and the magnitude of the deferred maintenance problem has not been reduced.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The County should determine a way to measure progress of the implementation of the RAMP directives and use that measure annually as a quantitative way of advising the citizens of the progress achieved.
F2: Most of the actions included in the RAMP document have not been taken and few of the objectives and goals of the plan have been achieved.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The County should consider acknowledging the growing magnitude of the deferred maintenance issue, review the RAMP objectives and actions, and develop a realistic approach.
F3: Fewer than half of the health and safety related needs identified in the FLIP report have been addressed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Beginning with the FY 2012-13 Budget Summary, the County should consider providing citizens a complete and accurate update of its progress in addressing deferred maintenance and include disclosure of near-term plans, especially with respect to the critical and highest priority needs.
F4: There is a lack of direction being provided by the Board concerning what actions should be taken to address the lack of progress on completing needed maintenance that has been deferred.
F5: The County has made little progress addressing the issue of deferred maintenance and the citizens have not been clearly informed regarding the status and magnitude of the problem.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: The cost of total board compensation can be a significant expense to districts facing financial challenges.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: All education districts should consider conducting an annual public review of the total compensation provided to their board members and address whether changes in compensation are warranted. The review should include a detailed breakdown of all components of that compensation, including meeting compensation, fees, stipends, allowances, health care or cash in lieu of health care, life insurance, employer-paid retirement plans, other post-retirement benefits, technology equipment and services, and any other form of compensation.
F2: Travel, mileage, training and other reimbursed expenditures are not a direct form of compensation, but can be a significant expense to districts facing financial challenges.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: As part of the public annual review discussed in Recommendation 1, all districts should consider reviewing their board travel, mileage, training and other reimbursed expenses to verify that they were necessary.
F3: Health care benefits, or cash in lieu of health care, can be the costliest compensation component.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: As part of the public annual review discussed in Recommendation 1, districts that provide health care benefits should consider whether it is appropriate to provide such benefits to their elected board members.
F5: Types of benefits offered to board members, such as health coverage, life insurance, or retirement benefits. The following tables show compensation data for the education boards in Contra Costa County for fiscal year 2010-2011. Total Board Compensation Components FY2010-11 Sorted by ascending Total Board Comp Life Total Travel / Meeting Health Insurance Board Training / Comp Care Retirement and Other Comp Other1 Acalanes Union High School District $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650 Byron Union School District 0 0 0 0 0 8,067 Canyon School District 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lafayette School District 0 0 0 0 0 2,735 Moraga School District 0 0 0 0 0 2,440 Orinda Union School District 0 0 0 0 0 2,195 Knightsen Elementary School District 0 9,326 0 0 9,326 0 Martinez Unified School District 14,400 0 0 0 14,400 0 John Swett Unified School District 14,400 0 0 0 14,400 3,638 Pittsburg Unified School District 14,280 0 0 480 14,760 5,305 Oakley Union Elementary 15,142 0 0 0 15,142 0 Liberty Union High School District 15,420 0 0 0 15,420 5,545 San Ramon Valley Unified School District 19,200 0 0 0 19,200 255 Brentwood Union School District 14,400 15,141 0 0 29,541 1,951 Walnut Creek School District 14,400 18,258 84 1,236 33,978 4,224 Antioch Unified School District 24,800 22,184 0 127 47,111 1,378 Contra Costa Office of Education 26,019 30,008 0 0 56,027 4,360 West Contra Costa Unified School District 43,961 36,5412 0 6,0003 86,502 3,002 Mt. Diablo Unified School District 44,454 48,035 0 0 92,489 3,874 Contra Costa Community College District 41,300 52,310 0 322 93,932 2,401 Totals $302,176 $231,803 $84 $8,165 $542,228 $52,020 Averages $15,109 $11,590 $4 $408 $27,111 $2,601 1 Reimbursed expenses that are not included in the compensation totals. These expenses include travel, mileage, training, seminars, conferences, and miscellaneous reimbursed items such as the cost of award dinner attendance. Includes cash in lieu of health care coverage. Expense allowances. Education Board Benefits for fiscal year 2010-2011: • Board members from the following six school districts received no compensation: Acalanes Union High School District, Byron Union School District, Canyon School District, Lafayette School District, Moraga School District, and Orinda Union School District. • Health Care o Board members from the following twelve school districts did not receive health care benefits: Acalanes Union High School District, Byron Union School District, Canyon School District, John Swett Unified School District, Lafayette School District, Liberty Union High School District, Martinez Unified School District, Moraga School District, Oakley Union Elementary, Orinda Union School District, Pittsburg Unified School District, and San Ramon Valley Unified School District. o Board members of eight education districts were offered health care benefits, although some members of those boards declined coverage: Antioch Unified School District, Brentwood Union School District, Contra Costa Community College District, Contra Costa Office of Education, Knightsen Elementary School District, Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Walnut Creek School District, and West Contra Costa Unified School District. ▪ The average total cost of health care benefits per entire board was $11,590. But for the eight boards that offer health care benefits, the average cost for each board was $28,975. ▪ The highest health care benefit total for an entire board was $52,310, for the Contra Costa Community College District. • Life Insurance o Board members of four districts received life insurance coverage: Antioch Unified School District, Contra Costa Community College District, Pittsburg Unified School District, and Walnut Creek School District. • One board member of the Contra Costa Community College District was reported to be eligible for a retirement health plan based on that member’s service on the board. • One board member of the Walnut Creek School District was reported as receiving a retirement plan payment of $84 for the fiscal year, based on that member’s service on the board. • Reimbursement for travel, mileage, and training is not compensation. However, there is considerable variation from the board average of $2,601, with Byron Union School District expending the most for reimbursements at $8,067. Board Compensation Analysis FY2010-11 Sorted by ascending Total Board Comp Highest Avg Highest Individual Board Total Board Individual Individual Health Avg Daily Cost Per Comp Total Comp Total Comp Benefit Attendance Student Acalanes Union High School District $0 $0 $0 $0 5,413 $0.00 Byron Union School District 0 0 0 0 1,625 0.00 Canyon School District 0 0 0 0 66 0.00 Lafayette School District 0 0 0 0 3,101 0.00 Moraga School District 0 0 0 0 1,677 0.00 Orinda Union School District 0 0 0 0 2,375 0.00 Knightsen Elementary School District 9,326 1,865 8,060 8,060 477 19.55 John Swett Unified School District 14,400 2,880 2,880 0 1,548 9.30 Martinez Unified School District 14,400 2,880 2,880 0 3,804 3.79 Pittsburg Unified School District 14,760 2,952 3,890 0 9,034 1.63 Oakley Union Elementary 15,142 3,028 3,890 0 4,445 3.41 Liberty Union High School District 15,420 3,084 3,084 0 6,768 2.28 San Ramon Valley Unified School 19,200 3,840 4,800 0 27,072 0.71 District Brentwood Union School District 29,541 5,908 9,631 6,751 7,968 3.71 Walnut Creek School District 33,978 6,796 8,839 5,712 3,186 10.66 Antioch Unified School District 47,111 9,422 10,425 8,000 17,778 2.65 Contra Costa Office of Education 56,027 11,205 18,021 12,729 156,2084 0.36 West Contra Costa Unified School 86,502 17,300 22,804 12,812 27,393 3.16 District Mt. Diablo Unified School District 92,489 18,498 24,541 15,937 32,293 2.86 Contra Costa Community College 93,932 18,786 32,343 23,857 30,5855 3.07 District Totals $542,228 $108,446 184,267 $2.94 Averages $27,111 $5,422 9,213 $2.94 4 This is the total average daily attendance for the County’s K-12 students, which determines board compensation. The enrollment at the Office of Education’s schools is 1,285. Using that number, the Board Cost per Student is $72.32. Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES), which determines board compensation, as many community college students are part time. Student enrollment is 39,053. Using that number, the Board Cost Per Student is $2.41 The above table analyzing Board Compensation for fiscal year 2010-2011 shows the following: • The average total compensation for an entire board was $27,111. • The average total compensation per individual board member was $5,422. • The lowest total compensation for an individual board member was $0. The highest total compensation for an individual board member was $32,343. • The average cost of board compensation per student was $2.94. The highest cost per student was $19.55 for the Knightsen Elementary School District. • Averages can mask considerable spreads between the lowest and highest compensated members of the same board. For example: o In the Knightsen Elementary School District, the average individual compensation was $1,865; the highest compensated member received $8,060. o In the Contra Costa Office of Education, the average individual compensation was $11,205; the highest compensated member received $18,201. o In the Contra Costa Community College District, the average individual compensation was $18,786; the highest compensated member received $32,343. FINDINGS 1. The cost of total board compensation can be a significant expense to districts facing financial challenges.
Página 4
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: The District has not been able to generate community interest in filling Board vacancies.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: LAFCO should initiate proceedings to dissolve Rollingwood-Wilart Park Recreation and Park District.
F2: The District has not been able to generate facility rentals.
F3: The District has failed to adequately perform basic management activities, including safekeeping of records, such as Board agenda, Board minutes, and financial documents.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 8 hallazgos
F1: Without new sources of revenue, the District's current operating structure cannot be sustained.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Board should consider other available operating structure alternatives before deciding on a ballot measure.
F2: From a quality of service point of view, the current operating structure is adequate. The Board of Directors has not publicly explained a parcel tax option at a level necessary to sustain the current operating structure.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Board should consider whether the current operating structure provides adequate service levels, and should be included as an alternative.
F4: The Board has not considered contracting for all fire suppression services from CAL FIRE, a capable, recognized provider of those services.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: All possible cost containment opportunities, including resolution of the union agreement, should be considered in the Board's evaluation of alternatives for providing service.
F5: The $197 parcel tax exceeds the amount required to support the Board's proposed, expanded operating structure, resulting in substantial reserves and cost to the taxpayers.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: For all operating structures considered, the Board should conduct the analyses required to determine whether the additional revenue being requested from the taxpayers is the minimum reasonably required to fund and sustain each alternative.
F6: The Grand Jury estimates the proposed $197 parcel tax will generate about 50% more revenue over a four year period than is needed to sustain the current operating structure.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: The Board should inform and educate the residents of the District regarding alternative operating structures and associated costs, and solicit their input.
F7: Only one approach to solving the problem is being presented in public information sessions. As a result, the residents have not been presented with their other options. Contra Costa County 2011-2012 Grand Jury Report 1202 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: After receiving public input, the Board should decide on the most appropriate operating structure and propose an appropriate parcel tax initiative.
F8: The Board is not offering a viable service option in the event a $197 parcel tax initiative for an expanded operating structure is not passed by voters in June, 2012.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: The Board should consider developing a viable service alternative to be implemented in the event of the parcel tax initiative failing.
F9: It is not clear that the Board is actively pursuing negotiations with collective bargaining units to reduce costs.
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R3: The Board should consider outsourcing all fire suppression services to CAL FIRE for the current operating structure as a potential cost saving measure.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos
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. Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding and is unclear as to the factual basis there for (sic). The Board had an extensive conversation on March 9, 2010, concerning the possible financial ramifications of the bond. The Board discussed the tax rate extension, tax rate estimates, the par amount of the bond, and a possible bond proceeds schedule. There has been no allegation that the Board neither was provided, nor failed to consider all legally required information. Furthermore, the Board prudently fulfilled its fiduciary responsibilities in selling $109,996,475 of bonds in 2010 at a TIC of 4.392%. The ratio of debt service to principal is 1.94, which means that for every dollar of principal there is .94 cents of interest. The term and interest rates compare very favorably to the District’s original bond sales in 2002, 2005, and 2006 as well as other bonds sold throughout the state.
Página 4
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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. Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. The Board will continue to responsibly exercise its fiduciary responsibilities and make all disclosures required by law. The Board dutifully adheres to many written processes regarding public disclosure, reporting and deliberative processes including, but not limited to, those set forth in the California Education Code, the California Government Code (Brown Act), the California Elections Code, Roberts Rules of Order and Board Policy. Development of additional written processes, specific to discussions of tax measures appears duplicative and extraneous.
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 Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Página 4
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: To verify the estimate 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. Response: This recommendation has been implemented at multiple levels: 1. System performance will be monitored perpetually throughout the term of the agreement (20 years). The “Performance Guarantee” provision stipulates that SunPower guarantee 94% of stated system production throughout contract term (20 years) and any production shortfalls must be paid annually to the District at the then current rate; 2. the District’s participation in the California Solar Initiative program requires rigorous annual reporting for the first five (5) years of operating in order to calculate and capture rebates; and 3. summary billings from PG&E will be reviewed monthly and compared to pre- system invoices to establish actual consumption and billing reductions. Consequently, the District’s established internal controls will far exceed the Grand Jury’s recommendation.
F3: The organization’s restructuring of the General Counsel's responsibilities has not resulted in anticipated operational effectiveness and may not have fulfilled the cost savings originally projected. Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. Due to severely decreased state funding and declining enrollment, the District has been forced to make deep budget cuts and to combine positions and responsibilities. Accordingly, the District eliminated the Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Services position. The responsibilities of that position were reallocated to the General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer. This was a financial exigency with no reasonable expectation of enhanced organizational efficiency. The cost savings originally projected were only the elimination of the Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Services position. Accordingly, all the savings originally projected have been realized. The increased responsibility of the General Counsel position has not diverted legal resources. The District’s legal budget was consolidated and reduced 50% during the 2009-10 fiscal year. The District’s current legal expenditures are quiet similar to what they were immediately before the reorganization.
Página 4
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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. Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The General Counsel is regularly evaluated. The District is (sic) consistently engages in an internal review of its operational effectiveness, budgeting and expenditures.
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 expense reductions. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding as it is intuitively obvious from an economic and budgetary perspective.
Página 5
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Board should continue to pursue reducing salaries and benefits to address the District's 2011-2012 budget shortfalls. Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The District will provide the recently negotiated employee agreements upon request. Unfortunately, further reductions will be necessary if the cycle of state budget shortfalls and declining enrollment continues. (See response to Finding No. 4). CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1103 County and City Vehicle Maintenance and Usage
F5: The adoption of a County anti-nepotism policy was proper. Response: Agree
Página 66
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: The BOS should ensure that all County mitigation funds, or similar funds under the control of a single Supervisor, receive proper supervision. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. In December 2008, the Board of Supervisors referred the issue of County Special Revenue Funds to the Internal Operations Committee for review and potential establishment of a protocol for allocating funding from such funds. After several months of study, the IOC referred a draft Special Revenue Policy to the Finance Committee for review in August 2009. In December 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved a policy statement affirming that responsibility for administration of Special Revenue funds was to remain with the Supervisor of the District in which the revenue was generated (Attachment H).
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. Response: Partially Disagree. The Board of Supervisors makes an appropriation of KCMF funds during the annual budget process. In addition, prior to policy enhancements to the KCMF allocation process approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 2011 (Attachment D), the District V Supervisor would submit an allocation plan to the Board of Supervisors each fiscal year for approval. A copy of the 2010/11 allocation plan, as approved by the Board of Supervisors, is included for reference (Attachment E).
Página 67
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented; the Board is currently engaged in labor negotiations with most of the recognized employee organizations. Legislation would be required to authorize the parties to negotiate a cap on retirement income for future hires. The County and the unions would have to reach a negotiated agreement on the cap.
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. Response: Agree.
Página 96
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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. Response: The recommendation has been implemented; the Board of Supervisors held a Pension 101 workshop specifically to educate the Board, employees, and the public regarding basic pension information and issues. All materials from the workshop were posted on the County’s website and are available at http://ca- contracostacounty.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=2617. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1108 Bridging the Gap at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility
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. Response: Agree.
Página 96
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: The Council should fill vacant key City management positions expeditiously. Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The City is fully aware of the importance of filling these positions and is moving expeditiously to fill both positions of City Manager and City Attorney. It is anticipated that these positions will be filled no later than October 2011. Upon the City Manager's retention, it will be his/her
F9: Some of the possible changes require State legislation, as noted in the table on . Response: Agree that some of the possible changes require State legislation. Disagree with some of the elements of the first three categories of data presented in the table on : 1. Design new pension tiers with lower benefits. For new hires the Board can design a new pension tier for new hires, but must obtain the unions’ agreement to the terms of the new tier. Legislation would be required to authorize the new tier for newly hired general members. As to safety members, the need for legislation depends on whether the elements of the new tier are already in the County Employees Retirement Law (CERL). Any aspects not currently in the CERL would require legislation. For current employees the Board can design a new pension tier for current employees, but lack legal authority to require current employees to enter such a tier. Legislation would be required to authorize the Board to negotiate movement of current employees to a lower tier and to authorize any components of the tier not currently found in the CERL. The County and the unions would have to reach a negotiated agreement on the new tier. The new tier may be subject to legal challenge by any affected current employee. 2. Utilize three year final average salary rather than the highest year. For new hires the Board must obtain the unions’ agreement on the use of three year averaging to calculate final compensation for new hires. Legislation would be required to authorize this change for newly hired general members. For current employees the Board lacks legal authority to require that three year averaging be used to calculate final compensation for current employees. Legislation would be required to authorize the Board to negotiate this pension benefit reduction for current employees. The County and the unions would have to reach a negotiated agreement on the change. The pension benefit reduction may be subject to legal challenge by any affected current employee. 3. Eliminate terminal pay add-ons. The Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association (CCCERA) determines which employment benefits are countable for purposes of determining Final Average Compensation. This is not a Board of Supervisors or Union decision. The Board and unions may negotiate elimination of employment benefits.
Página 96
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9: The Council should review compensation for Council members and take appropriate actions. Response: This recommendation has been implemented. On July 12, 2011, the City Council reviewed Council Member compensation and benefits. On July 26, 2011, the City Council adopted a Resolution rescinding all health and welfare benefits for all Council Members. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1111 Brentwood – A City Addressing Reality
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. Response: Agree that pension reform is complex and agree that there are differing legal opinions on what can be done, who can make it happen and when it can be done.
Página 97

* 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.