Contra Costa County Grand Jury
2012-2013
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The County has made a very limited effort to expand the number and scope of public-private "true or strategic" partnerships as part of its sustainability activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator and CCCHSD management to bring a new level of urgency to the engagement of private sector institutions in partnering
F2:
Two years after the sustainability study's findings were presented to the County Board of Supervisors, little meaningful change in the number of "true or strategic" partnerships has been achieved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator and CCCHSD management to bring a new level of urgency to the engagement of private sector institutions in partnering
F3:
Private providers in the County recognize the need to, and the advantages of, approaching healthcare planning from a strategic perspective.
F4:
There has not been a concerted effort on the part of Contra Costa County leadership to develop a structure that would allow and encourage discussion of a broad-based, integrated approach to the definition of need, assessment of services, and planning for the future which involves key healthcare public and private providers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator and CCCHSD management to engage in an open and transparent dialogue with other major healthcare providers in the County for the purpose of establishing an integrated approach to assuring that residents actually have access to care as demand increases and capacity is strained.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors takes the lead in creating a climate and a culture that will encourage a collaborative approach to planning for and providing quality healthcare for all of the residents of Contra Costa County.
F5:
All healthcare providers, public and private, recognize the impact new legislation will have on the number of people eligible for care and the insufficiency of current resources to meet the future demand.
F6:
There are examples from other counties of platforms established to allow the constructive exchange of ideas for collaborative efforts which Contra Costa County could study and consider for implementation.
F7:
Breakdowns in communication among CCHSD, the County Administrator's Office and the Board of Supervisors reflect reporting problems resulting from the chain of command in the current governance structure. Contra Costa County 2012-2013 Grand Jury CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTHCARE
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
The Board of Supervisors receive quarterly updates from the County Administrator and CCHSD management of progress made and results achieved with regard to the first three recommendations made above.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Contra Costa County does not have a formal policy regarding compensation adjustments for elected officials.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors (a) not adjust their own compensation in such a manner that their average compensation cost exceeds the 50th percentile of the determined range and (b) not adjust the compensation for any individual supervisor outside of the determined range (see Table 1).
F2:
The average compensation of the five Supervisors is at the 37th percentile, within the determined range, but below the mid-point, when compared to the twelve-county sample.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors not adjust the compensation cost of any role official in such a manner that it falls outside of the determined range for that role.
F3:
The cost of compensation for the Clerk-Recorder role is beyond the 99th percentile, far above the Upper Boundary of the determined range.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors not adjust the compensation cost of any of the six role officials in such a manner that the average compensation cost for the role officials as a group exceeds the 50th percentile of the determined range (see Table 8.2).
F4:
The cost of compensation for the Sheriff-Coroner role is at the 17th percentile, below the Lower Boundary of the determined range.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors, at its next opportunity, adjust the compensation cost of the Clerk- Recorder position to bring it within the determined range as defined in this report (see Table 4.2), subject to any restrictions in taking such an action pursuant to Government Code section 1235, "Salary for Elected Public Office, Reduction During an Election Year."
F5:
The average compensation of the six role officials is at the 50th percentile, at the mid-point of the determined range, when compared to comparable counties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Board of Supervisors, at its next opportunity, consider adjusting the compensation cost of the Sheriff-Coroner position to bring it within the determined range as defined in this report (see Table 7.2).
F6:
The compensation of the two positions falling outside of their determined ranges can be adjusted to fall within those ranges without increasing the average compensation cost for Contra Costa County's elected role officials.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors adopt a written policy for determining and setting the compensation of elected officials.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
The Board of Supervisors consider retaining a compensation consultant to review the Grand Jury's Findings and Recommendations.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F2:
In several instances, the Material Weaknesses, Significant Deficiencies and other deficiencies were repeated from one year to the next by the external auditors without being remedied.
F3:
Weaknesses in Internal Controls could ultimately result in financial losses, loss of public confidence (reputational risk), inaccurate or faulty financial reporting and decision- making based on incomplete or inaccurate information.
F4:
Several of the entities reviewed showed issues (including Material Weaknesses/Significant Deficiencies) with respect to compliance with grants which they have been awarded.
F5:
Unresolved problems with grants could potentially result in the loss of future grants and required repayment of expended grant funds. Where repayment of grant funds is required, unrelated general fund resources are being used. This can result in a loss of public confidence (reputational risk).
F6:
There is a significant difference among County Organizations as to the level of importance placed on the control and grant compliance findings of the outside auditors and need to remedy, on a timely basis, the issues noted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
County Organizations maintain or add audit report results to appropriate financial managements' performance goals to ensure that such individuals are held accountable for promptly remedying deficiencies identified in audit reports, and consider the legality of maintaining or adding such performance goals on audit reports to financial managements' evaluations.
F7:
Many of the entities reviewed had communications from the auditors indicating that a significant number of audit adjustments were required to the financial statements as prepared by the organization. This may suggest that monthly or interim information prepared during the year was incorrect, potentially impacting budgetary controls and/or information presented to management/governing boards for decision-making or oversight purposes.
F8:
Based on the entities reviewed, the County Board of Supervisors, the City Councils, and the governing boards in the case of school districts and special districts, are not providing adequate oversight over the entities that they govern to ensure that Material Weaknesses, Significant Deficiencies and other deficiencies in regard to Internal Controls and outside grant compliance are being remedied in a timely manner. Most County Organizations do not have an Audit Committee, independent of the organization's financial management, which is chartered to provide financial oversight. Contra Costa County 2012-2013 Grand Jury ASSESSING FISCAL RISK A recurring finding by the independent auditors with respect to school districts related to the need for improved controls over "Associated Student Body Funds" - the various student clubs and organizations for which the districts have financial oversight and accounting responsibility. The improved control recommendations involved controls over cash receipts, timely accounting and reconciliation of funds held by the organizations and controls over disbursements. Continued and significant problems in this area could result in both losses and negative publicity (reputational risk).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County Organizations improve direct financial oversight and assessment of the control environment including: The Board of Supervisors more actively provide oversight in the case of the County a. and appoint a formal Audit Committee from among their members to ensure that Internal Control and grant compliance deficiencies are promptly remedied and there are sufficient direct and detailed discussions between the Board and the outside auditors. b. The City Councils more actively provide oversight by appointing an Audit Committee from among their members as well as an ad hoc citizens' committee to ensure that Internal Control deficiencies are promptly remedied. c. The governing boards of school districts appoint a formal Audit Committee from among their members and provide direct oversight to district operating and financial management to ensure that Internal Control deficiencies are promptly remedied. d. The governing boards of special districts appoint a formal Audit Committee from among their members and provide direct oversight to district operating and financial management to ensure that Internal Control deficiencies are promptly remedied. In instances where the size of the entity precludes an adequate segregation of duties, governing board members need to consider direct involvement in key financial processes. The Superintendent of the County Office of Education continue to provide e. oversight over governing boards of school districts and continue to use the power of this office to compel remediation of Internal Control deficiencies. f. LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) encourage governing boards of special districts to promptly remedy Internal Control deficiencies that are identified. The Board of Supervisors have the County internal audit staff report directly to the g. Board of Supervisors rather than the Auditor Controller. The governing boards of Contra Costa County 2012-2013 Grand Jury ASSESSING FISCAL RISK other County Organizations have the internal audit groups of other County Organizations maintain their independence and not report to financial management but instead to the City Council in the case of cities and the governing boards in the case of school districts and special districts.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Contra Costa County detention facilities, both adult and juvenile, appear to be well- managed and well-maintained despite the budgetary struggles of the County in recent years. The staff members in both the adult and juvenile facilities conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner.
F2:
A review of adult detention facility capacity measured against detainees shows that 14% of the space remains available. Taken at face value this figure can be misleading. Forty percent of the space at Marsh Creek is unfilled, while the figure for West County is 13.5% and for Martinez, 9%. To obtain a realistic view of available detention space in the county, the type of facility must be compared against the level of security required. Given this approach, the county is in good shape with low-security inmates (Marsh Creek), less well off for medium-security (West County), and faces potential problems in the high-security area (Martinez). This situation may be exacerbated if AB 109 pushes more long-term, high-risk offenders into county facilities.
F3:
The computer-based maintenance and repair Corrigo system has the capability to track work requested, to evaluate work submitted and completed against established "best practice" targets and to measure service levels and employee performance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County utilize the Corrigo system to track and measure the performance of Public Works facilities maintenance and repair efforts and personnel against established standards for work completion.
F4:
Grand Jury Report No. 1210, completed last year, recommended that an effort be made to implement a system whereby voluntary inmate labor could be used to carry out minor repairs and maintenance in detention facilities. Reports indicate that grievances have been filed by the GSD/Public Works union objecting to the use of inmates for minor maintenance and repairs. The resolution reached allows only yard work on a very limited basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County engage appropriate unions in discussions to expand the program of voluntary labor in the detention facilities with respect to inmates carrying out minor maintenance and repairs beyond yard work.
F5:
The renovation of the Martinez Intake Area remains uncompleted despite the passage of two and one-half years, with little likelihood that it will be finished in the immediate future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County investigate the delay in completing work associated with the renovation of the Martinez Intake Area and establish necessary procedures to enable the completion of emergency projects on a timely basis.
F6:
Without a computer-based case management system, the Probation Department is unable to track follow-up care, recidivism and program effectiveness in a timely and cost- effective manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County develop and implement a computer-based case management system as soon as possible.
F7:
Classes beyond the high school level are not available at the Juvenile facilities. Incarcerated youth who complete high school or obtain a GED are unable to continue their education.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Contra Costa Community College District determine what it can do to begin serving residents at both John A. Davis Juvenile Hall and Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Center to provide educational and training programs while they are incarcerated and after they are released.
F8:
Marsh Creek and The Boys' Ranch are isolated and difficult for families to visit, especially if they rely on public transportation. Contra Costa County 2012-2013 Grand Jury REPORT 1310
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
There is a persistent imbalance of 2 to 1 in Grand Jury applications between Districts II & IV and Districts I, III & V.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
At public events, the Supervisors and their staff actively encourage applications for Grand Jury service.
F2:
The problem is not the size of applicant pool, but the distribution over the five supervisorial districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Supervisors use email and other media they now use to encourage Grand Jury application in their districts.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
County offices open to the public in all districts display Grand Jury brochures and application forms.
R4:
City offices in Districts I, III, and V display Grand Jury brochures and application forms.
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
SRVUSD and PUSD fund their debt service from Net Savings. MDUSD, CCCCD and 124 MUSD fund their solar energy programs with General Obligation Bonds, which are 125 retired through the payment of monies arising from tax revenues. 126
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Stellar Energy SunPower SolarCity Chevron Energy Solutions The financial projections Yes - 0.5\% Yes - 0.75\%
F2:
PUSD, MDUSD, CCCCD and MUSD are not reserving funds for future anticipated 127 Operational and Maintenance ("O&M") costs and unanticipated costs such as inverters 128 and other "big-ticket" items. 129
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Yes - 0.5\% Yes - 0.5\% Yes - 0.5\% include an annual rate of photo voltaic degradation 3% 5% 4%
F3:
All districts but MUSD gave some consideration to the PPA approach in lieu of 130 ownership of solar panels. Those that considered such an approach did not employ 131 detailed lease versus buy financial analyses as part of their evaluations. 132
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
School districts include the original projections in tracking reports of energy produced 154 and related Net Savings generated for purposes of comparison. 155
F4:
Future increases in insurance costs were only considered by the MUSD in projecting Net 133 Savings. 134
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The reports in Recommendation No. 3 be available for public viewing on the districts' 156 web sites in addition to any other method used by the districts for their dissemination. 157 158
F5:
Reports of solar energy produced, and the related Net Savings, do not include 135 comparisons to the original projections for those categories (see No. 7 in Appendix 1). The reports of information in Finding No. 5 were not always available on the districts' 137 websites. 138
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Districts mitigate risks regarding the long-term viability of the solar energy programs and 159 identify funds to implement this. 160
F6:
No. 1) was requested from was a several vendors renegotiation of a previous PPA contract, competitive bids could not be solicited. The districts established Yes, Actual data Yes for
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Districts considering solar energy programs seek information from other school districts 161 in the county that have a solar energy program in place regarding their experiences, acquired knowledge, and outcomes resulting from their programs. 162
F7:
The districts did not insulate themselves from financial risk by securing performance 139 bonds from solar energy vendors to ensure fulfillment of long-term warranties, 140 performance guaranties and O&M obligations. 141
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The County Office of Education facilitate the exchange of information on solar energy 163 programs among the county's school districts and identify funds to implement this. 164
F8:
The five districts did not share substantive information, analyses and experiences with 142 each other concerning the selection and installation of a solar energy program, and the 143 Contra Costa County Office of Education did not facilitate this process. 144
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
School districts employ the beneficial actions identified in
F9:
All districts have learned some lessons in the implementation of the five solar energy 145 projects that could be beneficial to other school districts considering solar energy projects 146 (see Appendix 2).
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Where feasible, ensure that the term of the warranty, performance guaranty and the 215 included O&M costs provided by the vendor are not less than the term of the project 216 financing. 217
F10:
After paying Not Not Not applicable financing specific to solar left over the installer, applicable applicable were not absorbed into the along with consultants general fund the higher and other Savings expenses, the realized excess bank were used to borrowings fund the are being solar used for solar installation installation at at an a new additional elementary school - school. none of these funds were absorbed into the general fund. Discounted Cash Flow
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
After paying Not Not Not applicable financing specific to solar left over the installer, applicable applicable were not absorbed into the along with consultants general fund the higher and other Savings expenses, the realized excess bank were used to borrowings fund the are being solar used for solar installation installation at at an a new additional elementary school - school. none of these funds were absorbed into the general fund. Discounted Cash Flow
F11:
Yes, 5% Yes, 8% No Yes, 3% No discount ("DCF") analysis was discount rate discount rate used to determine the net rate used. used used benefits of the project - see Note No. 2. 173 174 Notes: 175
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Yes, 5% Yes, 8% No Yes, 3% No discount ("DCF") analysis was discount rate discount rate used to determine the net rate used. used used benefits of the project - see Note No. 2. 173 174 Notes: 175
F13:
Include in tracking reports of actual energy produced and the related Net Savings a 223 comparison with original projections and make such reports available on the district's 224 web site in addition to any other method for their dissemination. 225
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Include in tracking reports of actual energy produced and the related Net Savings a 223 comparison with original projections and make such reports available on the district's 224 web site in addition to any other method for their dissemination. 225
F14:
Take steps to mitigate risks regarding the long-term viability of their solar energy
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
Take steps to mitigate risks regarding the long-term viability of their solar energy
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Board of Supervisors has taken a step in a process to identify and implement a more efficient and cost-effective fire service and emergency medical response model by commissioning studies to review and analyze current fire protection and emergency medical response practices of the County Fire Protection District and to make recommendations of alternative approaches.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors consider sharing the written studies prepared by Fitch and Associates with all other fire protection districts in the County and that the County and fire districts consider using those studies as the basis for future discussions exploring opportunities to leverage strengths and optimize the delivery of services throughout the County. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors consider sharing studies by Fitch and Associates with LAFCO and LAFCO consider postponing MSRs for fire districts until the studies are available and can be used to provide updated context for LAFCO's reviews and analyses, provided that LAFCO does not delay issuing any such MSR beyond the time that it is required to do so by applicable California statute.
F2:
The timing of the commissioned studies, which coincide with LAFCO's plan to undertake MSRs of the fire districts in the County, presents an excellent opportunity to develop improved fire protection and emergency medical response operations in the districts and throughout the County.
F3:
Cooperation between the County and fire district governing bodies is critical to successfully transition to new models of providing fire protection and emergency medical response services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
No fire districts consider any revenue-generation ballot initiatives until results of the studies have been reviewed and evaluated and plans have been developed by each district to implement any agreed-upon "best practices" that may be included in those studies.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
LAFCO consider identifying funds to issue an annual, written status report regarding efficiency improvement and model optimization activities within County fire districts.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
In the most recent Annual Reports, Permittees reported compliance with their permits; however, Contra Costa County recently received a "Notice of Violation" with regard to its stormwater program.
F2:
Many Permittees are currently spending more than the total amounts collected from fees/taxes/assessments etc., designated for stormwater management purposes; any funding shortfalls are covered via supplements from the general fund.
F3:
Despite the current levels of money being spent on the stormwater control initiatives, many Permittees do not think they are doing as much as necessary to position themselves to meet future compliance requirements. Contra Costa County 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report 1305
F4:
The requirements for compliance are expected to become increasingly demanding and the process of negotiating the terms and conditions of the next permit are unclear. Permittees disagree on what reasonable/practical program requirements should entail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The permit negotiation process be clarified with roles, negotiating strategies, and negotiation objectives defined.
F6:
All Permittees are forecasting that the lack of funds needed to undertake the critical activities to reach compliance levels will result in the majority of them being non- compliant in 2-5 years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Permittees immediately quantify a range of future expenditure requirements associated with a range of negotiation outcomes and develop funding plans.
F7:
The CCCWP seems to be doing a reasonable job in terms of its role for centralized activities such as public education, outreach, training and monitoring. As an intermediary between the Permittees and the regulatory bodies, the CCCWP appears to be failing because there is a significant difference between the expectations and views of the regulators and the Permittees. There are dramatically different perspectives of what needs to be done, how it should be done and what happens if it is not done.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The CCCWP immediately begin to implement more direct communications between the individual Permittees and the regulatory authorities to eliminate the confusion that currently exists between the two parties as to program requirements, solutions for meeting long-term permit compliance and development of mutually agreed-upon plans for the path forward.
F9:
It is unclear what the impact of non-compliance status will be for a Permittee.
F10:
The potential future risk associated with funding deficits and non-compliance is not being accurately communicated to citizens by the Permittees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Permittees consider identifying funds to disclose to the public "the issues" surrounding the lack of funding to fulfill their NPDES permit requirements, including a discussion of potential, but realistic, impacts of non-compliance.
F11:
Following failure of the 2012 Community Clean Water Initiative, cities do not appear to have formulated realistic alternative plans.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Before any Permittee makes any effort to approach its citizens with another request for additional funding, all stakeholders reach consensus on a plan for the path forward that includes articulations of reasonable objectives, ways to measure those objectives and reasonable timelines for accomplishment of those objectives.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The County does not currently offer its employees the option to waive healthcare insurance coverage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Include as part of the County's proposals in negotiations of MOUs with County bargaining units a waiver provision that allows financial benefits for both the County and the employee.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds that:
Allowing a County employee to waive healthcare insurance coverage would save the County the money it pays towards the employee's premium.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Direct the County Administrator to develop a healthcare insurance waiver provision that would allow a County employee to opt-out of coverage under the County's plans if the employee can prove he or she has healthcare insurance coverage from a source other than the County.
F3:
The Grand Jury finds that:
Paying a financial incentive to each employee choosing to waive healthcare insurance would reduce the amount the County would save.
F4:
The Grand Jury finds that:
An employee who waives healthcare insurance coverage would receive an increase in net pay due to no longer paying the premium.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Some studies have concluded that outsourcing certain city services can result in cost and efficiency improvements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Cities within the County review case studies and evaluations of the pros and cons of outsourcing municipal services.
F2:
Outsourcing is being successfully utilized by many cities within the County, although the extent of outsourcing varies widely.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Cities identify those services for which outsourcing hold an opportunity for cost savings and efficiency improvements.
F3:
Outsourcing is not a solution for all cost and performance problems and should only be considered after other efforts to optimize operations have been implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Cities conduct analyses that estimate the internal cost-of-service and weigh that Contra Costa County 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report 1302 against the cost of outsourcing. For meaningful comparison, analyses should include a measure of the costs related to managing employee payroll, pension and health benefits, workers' compensation claims, and other personnel management functions. Cities' governing bodies should consider "identifying funds" to carry out these activities. The analyses should be implemented as a formal process, conducted on an annual basis and provided in a written document.
F4:
Recommendations of "best practices" to implement outsourcing initiatives are available for cities to review. Most cities in Contra Costa County do not have a regular and formalized process for evaluating whether each municipal service could effectively be, or should be, outsourced.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
City officials inform residents of the results of those analyses and explain the reasons for action (outsourcing of a service) or in-action (continuation of the use of internal resources).
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Policy is set by the California State Legislature, but the implementation process is up to the local LAFCO. Policies to implement state mandates are a matter of local jurisdiction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Contra Costa County LAFCO become much more proactive in its review and evaluation of agencies within its purview, pursuant to Government Code section 56430.
F2:
LAFCOs' authority to enforce its recommendations is limited, although it can take action using SOI as a tool for disciplining wayward local agencies. LAFCO has not realized the full potential of its ability to educate and influence the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
LAFCO assess performance of its agencies beginning with their mission statements, but also determining whether or not they have in place measurable goals for service delivery, fiscal sustainability, and other Section 56430 elements related to successful performance. Without these goals performance cannot be accurately measured.
F3:
LAFCO members can speak out individually and publicly, and, except for the Public Representative, are appointed by constituencies to which they can return with concerns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
LAFCO develop a staggered MSR process which would spread the workload more evenly and give LAFCO a more solid foundation permitting more in-depth MSRs targeting, in particular, those local agencies which have demonstrated the need for greater and more frequent review.
F4:
Instances exist, some quoted above, which represent failures on LAFCO's part to take actions that were recommended by the Grand Jury, or which took lengthy amounts of time to be brought to closure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
LAFCO do much more than it currently does with regard to reviewing and commenting on local agency budgets, particularly for those agencies that lack a fiscal oversight entity.
F5:
Should it choose to do so, LAFCO can become more assertive under existing state law, by following up more rapidly on concerns raised by its studies or those conducted by other agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
LAFCO institute a program of regularly reviewing local agency annual financial statements, auditor reports and other key regulatory documents or reports including annual updates on performance so that highlighted indicators are regularly tracked and evaluated rather than during the five-year cycle.
F6:
Given the existing five-year MSR cycle, LAFCO is simply unable to respond immediately or nimbly to issues within local agencies as they arise. The five-year MSR cycle also precludes timely follow up and monitoring with regard to concerns raised during reviews.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
LAFCO propose corrections for the deficiencies found with regard to the elements noted in Section 56430, with specific time lines for correcting them.
F7:
Conducting all MSRs on an equal basis and all at once every five years means that local agencies with potentially severe ongoing or new significant problems may not get a timely and in-depth review. Contra Costa County 2012-2013 Grand Jury REPORT 1303
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The time lines for deficiency corrections be structured in such a way as to encourage regular and frequent reports, particularly for those agencies with egregious deficiencies.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
LAFCO provide to each agency governing board a full report of the results of its review including proposed improvements, and these reports, as well as follow-up evaluations and reports, are made available to the agency's constituency.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board should consider other available operating structure alternatives before deciding on a ballot measure. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Board of Directors – East Contra Costa County Has been implemented. Fire Protection District
R2:
The Board should consider whether the current operating structure provides adequate service levels, and should be included as an alternative. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Board of Directors – East Contra Costa County Has been implemented. Fire Protection District
R3:
The Board should consider outsourcing all fire suppression services to CAL FIRE for the current operating structure as a potential cost savings measure. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Has been carefully considered but rejected Board of Directors – East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
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. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Board of Directors – East Contra Costa County Has been implemented Fire Protection District
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. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Board of Directors – East Contra Costa County | Has been implemented. Fire Protection District
R6:
The Board should inform and educate the residents of the District regarding alternative operating structures and associated costs, and solicit their input. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Board of Directors - East Contra Costa County Has been implemented. Contra Costa County 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report 1301. Fire Protection District
R7:
After receiving public input, the Board should decide on the most appropriate operating structure and propose an appropriate parcel tax initiative. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Has been implemented Board of Directors – East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
R8:
The Board should consider developing a viable service alternative to be implemented in the event of the parcel tax initiative failing. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Is being implemented. Board of Directors - East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District To refer to the Grand Jury Report No. 1202 and to see the actual responses received by the Grand Jury, please go to: http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Contra Costa County 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report 1301. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1203 DEFERRED MAINTENANCE How Much Longer Can It Be Deferred?
R9:
A district should provide financial data and reports to committee members sufficiently prior to meetings to permit meaningful and effective review and oversight. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Governing Board - Acalanes Union High Has been implemented School District Governing Board - Antioch Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board - Byron Union School Has been implemented District Governing Board - Contra Costa Community Has been implemented College District Governing Board - John Swett Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board - Martinez Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board - Mt. Diablo Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board - Pittsburg Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board - West Contra Costa Unified Has been implemented School District
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. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Governing Board - Acalanes Union High Will be implemented prior to the 2011-12 School District performance audit Governing Board - Antioch Unified School Will be implemented for the fiscal year ending District June 30, 2012 Governing Board - Byron Union School Will be implemented in the future District Governing Board - Contra Costa Community Will be implemented for the 2013 audit cycle College District Governing Board - John Swett Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board – Martinez Unified School Will be implemented in the future District Will not be implemented Governing Board – Mt. Diablo Unified School District Governing Board - Pittsburg Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board - West Contra Costa Unified Has been implemented School District
R11:
The district's annual 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. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Governing Board - Acalanes Union High Has been implemented School District Governing Board - Antioch Unified School Has been Implemented District Governing Board - Byron Union School Has been partially implemented; will be fully District implemented in the future Governing Board - Contra Costa Community Has been implemented College District Governing Board - John Swett Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board - Martinez Unified School Will be implemented in the future District Governing Board - Mt. Diablo Unified School Will not be implemented District Governing Board - Pittsburg Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board - West Contra Costa Unified Has been implemented School District
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 bond funds have been spent and the committee's work completed. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Governing Board - Acalanes Union High Has been implemented School District Governing Board - Antioch Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board - Byron Union School Has been partially implemented; will be fully implemented in January, 2013 District Contra Costa County 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report 1301. Governing Board - Contra Costa Community Has been implemented College District Governing Board - John Swett Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board - Martinez Unified School Will be implemented in the future District Governing Board - Mt. Diablo Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board - Pittsburg Unified School Has been implemented District Governing Board - West Contra Costa Unified Has been implemented School District To refer to the Grand Jury Report No. 1208 and to see the actual responses received by the Grand Jury, please go to: http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 1209 CITY RETIREMENT PLANS An Unsustainable Benefit?
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
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.
Related Recommendations (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.
Related Recommendations (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.
Related Recommendations (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.
Related Recommendations (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.
Related Recommendations (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.
* 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.