Contra Costa County Grand Jury
2013-2014
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (10)
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Contra Costa County adult and juvenile facilities are well managed and well maintained by staff who conduct themselves professionally and courteously. Contra Costa County is committed to a policy of providing adult and juvenile prisoners with programs that address their psychological and educational needs to reduce the likelihood that they will reoffend when they are released.
F3:
The County's rehabilitation-oriented philosophy cannot be fully implemented because rehabilitative programs are not available for a substantial number of adult prisoners housed at the Martinez facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should consider preparing a complete application, including the identification of matching funds, when applying for a grant from the State during the next round of funding for the construction of additional detention facilities at West County, in order to provide rehabilitative services to inmates who could be transferred from Martinez.
F4:
The Sheriff's Office has applied to the State, unsuccessfully, for funds to build additional cells and program space at the West County facility that would help alleviate the problem of insufficient program space. The next opportunity to secure funding is likely to occur in 2015.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should consider preparing a complete application, including the identification of matching funds, when applying for a grant from the State during the next round of funding for the construction of additional detention facilities at West County, in order to provide rehabilitative services to inmates who could be transferred from Martinez.
F5:
The juvenile facilities face challenges in providing adequate rehabilitative services because of a shortage of staff. In 2015, a federal law will begin to be phased in that ultimately require a minimum 1:8 ratio of probation staff to juveniles, which compares favorably to the current ratio of 1:10.
F7:
Adequate mental health services at the Boys' Ranch are now available.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should consider continuing to make the provision of adequate mental health services at the Boys' Ranch a high priority.
F8:
Routine maintenance and repair issues continue to be a constant source of annoyance to inmates/residents and to those responsible for operating both adult and juvenile detention facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should consider continuing to engage appropriate unions in discussions with respect to using inmate labor to perform maintenance and repairs at county detention facilities.
F9:
Absent the availability of more funding to address maintenance and repair needs, the best solution with regard to the adult facilities may would be to make use of inmate labor, as appropriate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should consider continuing to engage appropriate unions in discussions with respect to using inmate labor to perform maintenance and repairs at county detention facilities.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The County should analyze ways to provide additional staffing at the juvenile facilities to comply with upcoming federal mandates.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The potential hazards to County facilities and communities are well documented and include both earthquake and weather-related hazards. One of the major challenges the County faces in planning for emergencies is the possibility of being isolated from the surrounding communities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff should update the Emergency Operations Plan.
F2:
The Emergency Operations Plan being used today is a draft document that has never been approved by the Board of Supervisors and has not been updated since 2011.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should approve an updated Emergency Operations Plan.
F3:
The Plan's drafters' self-imposed schedule to update it annually is unrealistic since the Board of Supervisors has not approved any of the previous revisions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should plan for and construct a permanent Emergency Operations Center if funds become available. Contra Costa County 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report 1409
F4:
The current Emergency Operations Center, located at 50 Glacier Drive in Martinez, is inadequate. It is not constructed to survive a major earthquake or natural disaster, is too small and is otherwise insufficient for sustained operations.
F5:
There is neither a clear strategy nor an ongoing effort to update the current Emergency Operations Center.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The law strongly encourages cities to provide their employees who are "mandated reporters" with training about their obligations to identify and report known or suspected child abuse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each city should consider immediately adopting a policy to train its employees and other personnel about their obligation to identify and report suspected cases of child abuse.
F2:
A "mandated reporter" employed by a city includes, but is not limited to, an administrator or employee whose duties require direct contact and supervision of children.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each city should review the duties of all employees and other personnel to determine which personnel fall within the definition of "mandated reporters" under Penal Code section 11165.7.
F3:
Training in child abuse reporting obligations should be given annually to every city employee whose duties require direct contact and supervision of children.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The training program should include all personnel who are "mandated reporters". The training program in child abuse reporting obligations should include:
F4:
Training in child abuse reporting obligations should include: a. Who are "mandated reporters"; b. What is "reasonable suspicion" of child abuse; c. How and when a report should be made; What safeguards are in place to protect mandated reporters; and d. e. What are the ramifications of making a suspected child abuse report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
a. Who are "mandated reporters"; b. What is "reasonable suspicion" of child abuse; How and when a report should be made; What safeguards are in place to protect mandated reporters; and d. What are the ramifications of making a suspected child abuse report. e.
F5:
While volunteers who have direct contact or supervise children are excluded from the definition of "mandated reporters" under the Penal Code, the law "encourages" such volunteers to obtain training in identifying and reporting suspected or known child abuse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Each city should consider including all volunteers who have direct contact with or supervise children in its abuse reporting training program.
F6:
A procedure should be implemented to verify that all city personnel who are mandated reporters receive training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
In the case where a city enters into an agreement with an independent contractor to provide services that requires direct contact or supervision of children, the city should consider ensuring that the independent contractor and each of its staff who will have direct contact or supervision of children have successfully completed the city's "mandated reporting" training program.
F7:
The Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County provides training services in abuse reporting at no cost to cities in the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Each city should establish a procedure for verifying that all employees and other personnel who are mandated reporters have successfully completed the training program each year.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
Each city should consider retaining the Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County to provide free training services about child abuse reporting. Contra Costa County 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report 1403
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
In response to previous Grand Jury reports concerning annual employee evaluations, the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator have stated that "departments are required to conduct annual performance reviews on all employees."
F2:
Approximately half the employees (over 4,000 employees) in the County do not receive annual evaluations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Departments with less than 100% annual performance evaluation completion rates should consider implementing policies and plans with timelines to develop and conduct annual evaluations, and identifying funds to do so.
F3:
The two largest departments, Health Services and Employment and Human Services accounted for over 3,000 incomplete evaluations last year (FY 2012-2013).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Departments with less than 100% annual performance evaluation completion rates should consider implementing policies and plans with timelines to develop and conduct annual evaluations, and identifying funds to do so.
F4:
Responsibility for tracking performance reviews by department heads has not improved completion rates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Departments with less than 100% annual performance evaluation completion rates should consider implementing policies and plans with timelines to develop and conduct annual evaluations, and identifying funds to do so.
F5:
While most departments have an internal function to track employee evaluations, many of these departments track only probationary and merit/step increases as required by the County for pay increases. Contra Costa County 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report 1406
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Departments with less than 100% annual performance evaluation completion rates should consider implementing policies and plans with timelines to develop and conduct annual evaluations, and identifying funds to do so.
F6:
Merit/step increases can term out as quickly (typically 5 years for most job classifications) resulting in long-term employees not receiving performance evaluations for years or even decades.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Departments with less than 100% annual performance evaluation completion rates should consider implementing policies and plans with timelines to develop and conduct annual evaluations, and identifying funds to do so.
F7:
There is no formal written county-wide policy on completing annual evaluations for all employees except for the response to past Grand Jury reports by the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Departments with less than 100% annual performance evaluation completion rates should consider implementing policies and plans with timelines to develop and conduct annual evaluations, and identifying funds to do so.
F8:
Only half of the departments in the County have a written policy concerning conducting annual employee evaluations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Departments with less than 100% annual performance evaluation completion rates should consider implementing policies and plans with timelines to develop and conduct annual evaluations, and identifying funds to do so.
F9:
Departments are not reporting annual evaluation completion rates to the County Administrator or the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should consider requiring the County Administrator to report yearly on annual employee evaluation completion rates by department.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
as agreed to in past Grand Jury reports.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F3:
Training in child abuse reporting obligations should be given to every employee of school districts in the County on an annual basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The training program in child abuse reporting obligations should include: a. Who are "mandated reporters"; b. What is "reasonable suspicion" of child abuse; c. How and when a report should be made; d. What safeguards are in place to protect mandated reporters; What are the ramifications of making a report about known and/or suspected child e. abuse.
F4:
Training in child abuse reporting obligations should include: a. Who are "mandated reporters"; b. What is "reasonable suspicion" of child abuse; How and when a report should be made; d. What safeguards are in place to protect mandated reporters; e. What are the ramifications of making a suspected child abuse report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Each district should establish a procedure for verifying that each employee has successfully completed the training program each year.
F5:
While "volunteers" who have direct contact or supervise children are excluded as "mandated reporters" under the Penal Code, the law "encourages" such volunteers to obtain training in the identification and reporting of known or suspected child abuse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Each district should consider including all "volunteers" who have direct contact with and/or supervise children in their abuse reporting training programs.
F6:
School districts should establish a procedure to verify that each employee has successfully completed the child abuse training program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Each district should consider retaining the Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County to provide training services about child abuse reporting at no cost to the district.
F7:
The Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County provides training services about abuse reporting at no cost to school districts in the County.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Each district should evaluate its program currently in place to train its employees in their obligations to identify and report suspected cases of child abuse.
R2:
Each district should adopt a program that provides training on an annual basis to all Contra Costa County 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report 1402 employees of the district about their obligations to report known or suspected child abuse.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F2:
County law enforcement agencies have avoided overcrowding primarily by continuing to implement the rehabilitative model of detention.
F3:
The lack of space for classes or meaningful counseling programs at the Martinez detention facility may prevent full implementation of the rehabilitative model of detention.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
In the next round of funding by the State, the County should consider making a strong case for the funds for the construction of county detention facilities.
F4:
Implementation of AB 109 does not appear to have resulted in a large increase in crime in the County.
F5:
Although it is difficult to be certain as to the cause of any increase in crime that has taken place since the implementation of AB 109, such increase has been isolated to property crimes, especially car thefts.
F6:
Most jurisdictions throughout the County cut back on their police forces prior to the adoption of AB 109.
F7:
Hiring addition law enforcement officers for street patrol is the most efficient use of money to curtail crime.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
To the extent that additional funds become available for law enforcement operating funds, the County should consider making the addition of law enforcement officers for routine street patrol the highest priority.
F8:
The close cooperation between the Sheriff's Office, the Probation Office, and the active participation of community advocates has been a key factor in the successful implementation of AB 109 in Contra Costa County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County should consider continuing to involve community advocates and service providers in the implementation of AB 109 initiatives. Contra Costa County 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report 1410
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The criminal justice agencies of the County should consider continuing their policies of emphasizing rehabilitative services and programs over lengthy incarcerations for convicted criminals.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F2:
The high cost of Capital Appreciation Bonds has caused a higher, long-term debt for school districts in Contra Costa County that have used these bonds to finance construction.
F3:
It is preferable for bonds to contain a "callable clause."
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
School districts should consider including "callable" provisions in all future bond issues. Contra Costa County 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report 1411
F4:
Each of the subject school districts has a published repayment schedule of its Capital Appreciation Bonded indebtedness.
F5:
The Auditor-Controller of Contra Costa County sets tax rates for properties in a school district to make sure principal and interest to bonded debts are paid when due.
F6:
The County Tax Collector collects the taxes that are held in designated accounts of the County Treasurer for issuance of debt payments as directed by the County Auditor- Controller.
F7:
The State Superintendent of Schools, the State Treasurer, and the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors have urged local districts to halt any further use of Capital Appreciation Bonds as a means of funding construction projects.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All school districts should consider avoiding the sale of Capital Appreciation Bonds in the future.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Pension benefits, as currently structured, are ultimately unsustainable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In order to bring about change, the Board should work with its union partners during the current contract negotiations for concessions to offset rising pension costs.
F2:
Continued increases in pension cost may result in further reduction of public services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board should prioritize its focus on benefit changes that have an immediate financial impact, while pursuing legislative relief where necessary, to accomplish further reductions. (See table on )
F3:
The Board has taken some actions to reduce pension costs but more must be done to achieve sustainability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Those changes that can be made unilaterally by the Board for new employees should be adopted. (See table on )
F4:
Under the California Employer Retirement Law, the Board, without union agreement, could unilaterally adopt lower pension tiers and/or three-year averaging for final compensation for new employees. Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 • • • •
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board should require employees to contribute more to their retirement costs.
F5:
The Board could achieve lower pension benefits and costs, if successfully negotiated with the union, by reducing salaries and other pay items that currently increase final average compensation. Some pay items, such as uniform pay, could be eliminated and excluded from final average compensation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
County leadership should work expeditiously to eliminate the 'pick-up' portion of the employees' contributions to the retirement plan, saving up to $18 million a year.
F6:
While the financial impact of many pension changes will not be recognized in the short-term, the County—with Union agreement—could immediately reduce costs by approximately $18 million a year by eliminating its 'pick-up' portion of the employee's contribution to the retirement plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board should seek special legislation to enable the County to cap retirement income so that no employee receives a pension greater than the base salary earned.
F7:
It is possible for retirees to receive more in pension benefits than the combined base salary those retirees earned while employed at the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Given the complexity of pension reform issues, the number of legislative changes being proposed and ongoing labor negotiations, the Board should keep the public informed of what is being proposed and the Board's positions on these issues. Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 . . . . .
F8:
Taxpayers are ultimately responsible for covering the shortfall between the cost of pensions and the amount accumulated from employee/employer contributions and pension fund investment income.
F9:
Some of the possible changes require State legislation, as noted in the table on .
F10:
Pension reform is complex due to the differing legal opinions on what can be done, who can make it happen and when it can be done. This has led to public interest.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R20-25:
25-30 30 + $4,769 2002-General $2,187 $2,508 2009-General $3,167 $4,114 $6,823 $6,525 2002-Safety $5,301 $8,309 $9,587 2009-Safety $6,838 $10,802 • To clarify the table above, a 50 year old safety officer who retired in 2002 with 26 years of service would receive $78,300 a year, or over $2.3 million over the next 30 years, whereas a safety officer of the same age and years of service retiring in 2009 would receive $129,624 a year or $3.9 million over the next 30 years. Include a 3% COLA (which is currently the maximum annual COLA for County safety employees hired before January 2007) and the benefit grows to over $3.7 million and $6.2 million respectively. The following table extracts information from the actuary's example above for retirees with between 25-30 years of service and assumes a 30 year payout, with an annual 3% COLA. It illustrates the approximate 30 year benefit of a General or Safety employee who retired in 2002 versus 2009. Individual Benefit Years of Service 25-30 Example Approx. Approximate Lifetime Lifetime Benefit with Annual 3% COLA Benefit Benefit 2002-General $30,096 $902,880 $1,431,925 2009-General $2,348,703 $49,368 $1,481,040 $2,349,000 $3,725,155 2002-Safety $78,300 $129,624 $3,888,720 $6,166,916 2009-Safety The unfunded liability is what the actuary determines as the cost to cover shortfalls from market losses, demographic changes, overly-optimistic investment returns by the pension plan administrator or other benefit improvements that were not covered by the contribution rates collected from the employee and employer. From 2008 to 2009 the unfunded liability increased from $690 million to $1.025 billion, or a 49% increase. This was due primarily to an investment return that fell short of the assumed 7.8% rate. Employees do not share any of the unfunded liability burden. It is only recovered through additional charges to the employer. In other words, if the investment return doesn't meet its objective, the employer/taxpayers will bear ultimate responsibility for the financial shortfall. Employer contributions, funded with tax dollars, are scheduled to increase again on July 1, 2011. Pension costs for the County have almost tripled since 1998 and are projected to continue to increase through FY 2015-16. In January 2011, the County projected the retirement expenses for FY 2010-11 to jump to $202 million from $193 million in FY 2009-10. It also projected that even greater County contributions will be required in each of the future five years. By FY 2015-16, the pension bill is estimated at $279 million, or an increase of $86 million (45%) over the actual expenses in FY 2009-10. While revenues have also increased since FY 1999-00, they have not kept pace with the growing allocation needed for pension costs. The following graph indicates the percentage of gross revenue that is required for General Fund retirement expenses has more than doubled in the past ten years. Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 Retirement Expense as % of CCC Gross Revenue 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% Percentage 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 99/00 00/01 Fiscal Year Competing Use of Resources Increasing pension costs have directly reduced funding available for other priorities in the County budget. Currently the County pays 41 cents in benefits and 40 cents in pension costs for every dollar paid out in salary. Salaries and benefits accounted for more than 52% of the General Fund portion of the County budget in FY 2010-11. In the past several years, the loss of property tax revenue has forced the County to make substantial reductions in expenditures. The loss of revenue, coupled with increasing pension costs, has resulted in a reduction of services for the public. According to County reports, the County made $41.2 million in cuts in FY 2010-11, which was in addition to $139.4 million of cuts since FY 2008-09. There is a current projected gap of $50 million between revenues and expenditures for FY 2011-12. This structural deficit will likely result in yet another round of cuts to personnel and services. What Has Been Done? The Board and County management have publicly recognized that they have an increasing pension liability that is significant and unsustainable. Even some union representatives have concluded that pension reform is necessary. The Board, with union concurrence, implemented a change to address pension costs for new safety employees. In January 2007, after negotiation with the Deputy Sheriffs' Association (DSA), and Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 . . subsequent legislation (SB524 enacted as Government Code section 31484.9), the County created a second tier pension for new safety members. This changed the calculation of final average compensation to 36 months instead of the 12 highest months of salary and reduced the COLA from 3% to 2%. This plan covers approximately 80 out of 1,275 safety employees and without new legislation will expire, or 'sunset' in 2012. The County through its legislative advocate and support of the DSA anticipates extending or removing the sunset clause, so that all safety employees hired after January 2007 would receive the lower tier benefits. Another change, which was adopted by CCCERA, affected County employees hired after January 1, 2011. Some employees have been able to increase their final average compensation by accruing vacation hours throughout their employment and selling back up to 466 hours in the final twelve months of work. Not only does the employee receive the cash equal to the hours sold, but the value of the vacation hours is added to the salary to increase final average compensation. Newly hired employees cannot sell back vacation hours at termination to increase final average compensation. However, some employee groups can still sell back accrued vacation hours during the last year of employment to boost final average compensation. Additionally, in March 2011 the Board voted to no longer allow non-union managers to convert vacation into cash payments. While the County is responsible for paying the employer contribution rate, which varies by bargaining unit each year, it has also negotiated with employee labor unions in past years to pay a portion of the employee's share of costs of the retirement contribution as well. Coupled with the County 'pick-up' of the employee share, the County pays over 75% of the pension cost for each employee. Most union contracts, which cover 92% of County employees, will expire in June 2011. Changes made in past negotiations include elimination of retiree health benefits for new employees and a cap on employer-paid health benefits to existing employees for most employee groups. Union representatives, the Board and County management have recognized that additional concessions will need to be negotiated. Included in the latest State of the County report is the need to initiate the process to restructure pension benefits. What Can Be Done? When the economy was growing, pension benefits were substantially improved in public systems, and the County was no exception. Then when the economy tanked, investment returns went south, so pension contributions had to go up, just when counties and the State could least afford it. There are a number of avenues for pension benefits to be changed: Board action Board action that requires union agreement Legislation (generally requires Board and union agreement) Public initiatives—ballot measures Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 . . Litigation Bankruptcy (applies to cities only) Options to reduce the pension burden are numerous. Some can be achieved by Board and union action, such as items concerning compensation; most however require legislative change, which can either be special State legislation for the County, or approved by the legislature and signed by the Governor with statewide application. For the benefit of the reader, the Grand Jury has identified some of the options being considered by governmental agencies. The following chart indicates potential benefit changes and the level of required approval if considered by a county. Note that there are differing legal opinions as to the approval level of some of these benefit changes. BENEFIT CHANGE REQUIRED APPROVAL Design new pension tiers with lower Board for new hires* benefits Board/Union/Special State Legislation for current employees Utilize three year final average salary Board for new hires* rather than the highest year Board/Union/Special State • Legislation for current employees Eliminate terminal pay add-ons** Board if not in MOU • Board/Union if benefit in MOU • Reduce salaries Board/Union • Implement cap on vacation accrual Board/Union • Eliminate uniform pay and other pay items Board/Union • to reduce final compensation Eliminate the 'pick-up' of the employee's Board/Union contribution to the retirement plan Explore restructure of pension, to include a Board/Union defined contribution plan to offset reduction in defined benefit plan Increase retirement age State Legislation • Cap pensions State Legislation • Eliminate or reduce COLAs State Legislation • Eliminate purchase of additional service State Legislation year credits Eliminate retroactive increases in benefits State Legislation • (ie. increasing benefit from 2%@60 to 2%@55 and applying it to past years of service) * Legal opinions vary on whether the Board can design new tiers without State legislation ** Note that CCCERA has made a change for new employees Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 What Others Have Done Other counties, cities and the State have successfully modified pension benefits. In the November 2010 elections, six cities and two counties had some type of local pension reform on the ballot. In November 2006, the City of San Diego stripped the power to raise pension benefits from elected officials and from the collective bargaining process. That power now rests with the electorate. In 2008, Orange County passed Proposition "J" with 75% of the vote, requiring voter approval for increases in county employee retirement benefits. More recently, the City of San Diego has proposed to cap pension pay by excluding 'add-ons' or 'specialty pay' and use only base salaries to calculate benefits. The Little Hoover Commission, a bipartisan group appointed by the former governor and State legislature, issued a report in February 2011. The Commission recommended California state and local governments "roll back pensions for existing employees, dump guaranteed retirement payouts and put more of the pension burden on workers." Specifically they urge the Governor and Legislature to establish the legal authority to freeze the benefits of current employees and reduce them in future years. The Commission acknowledged the significant legal challenges to modifying pension benefits for current workers, but recognized that the problem cannot be solved without addressing the mounting pension obligations of current employees. A poll jointly conducted by the University of California, Berkeley and The Field Poll in February and March, 2011, found that California voters have changed their views about government pension benefits. By a margin of four to three, voters now view pension benefits as too generous. As recently as two years ago, The Field Poll found that 40% of voters believed the pension benefits of most government workers were at about the right level. The strongest support (73%) was for establishing an upper limit or salary cap when calculating pension benefits of public employees, followed by 69% favoring government workers paying more each month for their pension and health care benefits. FINDINGS 1. Pension benefits, as currently structured, are ultimately unsustainable. 2. Continued increases in pension cost may result in further reduction of public services. 3. The Board has taken some actions to reduce pension costs but more must be done to achieve sustainability. 4. Under the California Employer Retirement Law, the Board, without union agreement, could unilaterally adopt lower pension tiers and/or three-year averaging for final compensation for new employees. Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 • • • • 5. The Board could achieve lower pension benefits and costs, if successfully negotiated with the union, by reducing salaries and other pay items that currently increase final average compensation. Some pay items, such as uniform pay, could be eliminated and excluded from final average compensation. 6. While the financial impact of many pension changes will not be recognized in the short-term, the County—with Union agreement—could immediately reduce costs by approximately $18 million a year by eliminating its 'pick-up' portion of the employee's contribution to the retirement plan. 7. It is possible for retirees to receive more in pension benefits than the combined base salary those retirees earned while employed at the County. 8. Taxpayers are ultimately responsible for covering the shortfall between the cost of pensions and the amount accumulated from employee/employer contributions and pension fund investment income. 9. Some of the possible changes require State legislation, as noted in the table on . 10. Pension reform is complex due to the differing legal opinions on what can be done, who can make it happen and when it can be done. This has led to public interest. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. In order to bring about change, the Board should work with its union partners during the current contract negotiations for concessions to offset rising pension costs. 2. The Board should prioritize its focus on benefit changes that have an immediate financial impact, while pursuing legislative relief where necessary, to accomplish further reductions. (See table on ) 3. Those changes that can be made unilaterally by the Board for new employees should be adopted. (See table on ) 4. The Board should require employees to contribute more to their retirement costs. 5. County leadership should work expeditiously to eliminate the 'pick-up' portion of the employees' contributions to the retirement plan, saving up to $18 million a year. 6. The Board should seek special legislation to enable the County to cap retirement income so that no employee receives a pension greater than the base salary earned. 7. Given the complexity of pension reform issues, the number of legislative changes being proposed and ongoing labor negotiations, the Board should keep the public informed of what is being proposed and the Board's positions on these issues. Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 . . . . . REQUIRED RESPONSES Findings Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 1 - 10 Recommendations Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 1 - 7 . Contra Coast County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1107 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
* 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.